On 17 Jan 2016, at 18:12, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 17, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
Thatâs the point. Someone finds this disruptive, someone instructing. But itâs always a true information. So here we are not dealing with the faults of algorithm but with a way we are communicating a data with a user.
Thatâs why I kindly ask not to call this things âfalse positivesâ :). I thinks that it makes sense to be bale to disable some critics by their severity.
Also I think that itâs a good thing to teach beginners to write class comments. You donât need special skills for that and making it a habit from the beginning will payoff in the future.
+1000!
+1 me too. I remember when Stef introduced the mark on uncomment classes I was against: I was finding the exclamation mark too disruptive. Then time proved me wrong: is a nice way to remember people they need to add class comments (and my own production of comments increased considerably). I think QA will do the same: it might look disruptive, but is educative in fact. cheers, Esteban
Cheers. Uko
On 17 Jan 2016, at 16:11, Cyril Ferlicot D. <cyril.ferlicot@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 17/01/2016 16:04, stepharo a écrit :
We have also instance variables not written or read class comment is empty
And I find that disruptive for a student starting with Pharo.
I find that instructing. When I create a class and I see those messages it's like "objectives". I need to correct that and it help me not to avoid the documentation.
-- Cyril Ferlicot
165 Avenue Bretagne Lille 59000 France