> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [lang] Revisiting empty statements one more time (last
time I
> promise)
>
> It could possible be done using the GenericIllegalRegexp check. I'm
> not a regexp guru so I'm not sure if an appropriate regexp could be
>
ocumented empty
> blocks
> > > because that is a maintenance problem. As long as there is no
> comment,
> > > there is a problem IMO. Allowing solo-; is just plain old confusing
> to
> > > me and does NOT add any value to the source.
> > >
> > > As
Subject: Re: [lang] Revisiting empty statements one more time (last
time I
> promise)
>
> How about:
>
> try
> {
> ...
> } catch (SomeException ignored) {
> // We do nothing here because the try block checked
> // the widget and logged an error in the fizbang.
> }
>
Hi,
there is an ongoing discussion on the slf4j list.
They want to provide an other alternative
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.slf4j.devel/116
try
{
...
} catch (SomeException ignored) {
log.ignore(ignored);
}
Maybe this idea (not the logger) is also useful in your case.
As I unders
t; I hope the above convinces folks too ;-)
>
> Gary
>
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: Steven Caswell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 9:17 AM
> > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > Subject: [lang] Revisiting empty
e, it
just points to a deficiency in the tool.
I hope the above convinces folks too ;-)
Gary
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven Caswell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 9:17 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: [lang] Revisitin
Gary and Stephen (and anyone else who might care ;)
I'd like to take one more stab at convincing you guys that an empty
statement denoted by a semicolon would be a better approach to
indicate no action than just using a comment. I promise I'll move on
if this is not convincing enough.
So here we
