base. qualifier shouldn't be marked as redundant

True, it can be and frequently is redundant, but I think it's dangerous to
mark it as redundant and actually remove the "base." qualifier.

I just experienced the negative effects of this in my own code. Such a
qualifier may be redundant at some point in time, but as code is changed and
modified and developed over time, it may become necessary. This was the
case for me, where I removed the "base." qualifier thanks to Reshaper's
quick-fix and warning flag, only to suddenly end up in an infinite loop a
few days later when the code changes and the signature changed. Because
there was no warning that the qualifier was now suddenly required, I think
it's a poor and potentially dangerous choice to ever indicate that the
qualifier isn't required.

Please consider removing this from your analysis. It seems dangerous and
just not a good idea. Besides, having it there has value to humans reading
the code.



2 comments
Comment actions Permalink

1) ReSharper do the analysis of the current state of the source code
2) I agree that some modifications could reduce the maintenability of the
code, and this warning is the such case
3) The "base." warning could be turned off separately from the others

--
Eugene Pasynkov
Developer
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"
"Paul Bradshaw" <pbradshaw@advsol.com> wrote in message
news:dtndvb$h1e$1@is.intellij.net...

True, it can be and frequently is redundant, but I think it's dangerous to
mark it as redundant and actually remove the "base." qualifier.

>

I just experienced the negative effects of this in my own code. Such a
qualifier may be redundant at some point in time, but as code is changed
and modified and developed over time, it may become necessary. This was
the case for me, where I removed the "base." qualifier thanks to
Reshaper's quick-fix and warning flag, only to suddenly end up in an
infinite loop a few days later when the code changes and the signature
changed. Because there was no warning that the qualifier was now suddenly
required, I think it's a poor and potentially dangerous choice to ever
indicate that the qualifier isn't required.

>

Please consider removing this from your analysis. It seems dangerous and
just not a good idea. Besides, having it there has value to humans
reading the code.

>
>



0
Comment actions Permalink

At the VERY least, make sure you can do #3. But I question the usefulness
of this particular "warning" at all. Removing it should at least be
considered, as it makes the resulting code more error-prone and less
readable/understandable.

"Eugene Pasynkov (JetBrains)" <Eugene.Pasynkov@jetbrains.com> wrote in
message news:dtnheo$1t9$1@is.intellij.net...

1) ReSharper do the analysis of the current state of the source code
2) I agree that some modifications could reduce the maintenability of the
code, and this warning is the such case
3) The "base." warning could be turned off separately from the others

>

--
Eugene Pasynkov
Developer
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"
"Paul Bradshaw" <pbradshaw@advsol.com> wrote in message
news:dtndvb$h1e$1@is.intellij.net...

>> True, it can be and frequently is redundant, but I think it's dangerous
>> to mark it as redundant and actually remove the "base." qualifier.
>>
>> I just experienced the negative effects of this in my own code. Such a
>> qualifier may be redundant at some point in time, but as code is changed
>> and modified and developed over time, it may become necessary. This was
>> the case for me, where I removed the "base." qualifier thanks to
>> Reshaper's quick-fix and warning flag, only to suddenly end up in an
>> infinite loop a few days later when the code changes and the signature
>> changed. Because there was no warning that the qualifier was now
>> suddenly required, I think it's a poor and potentially dangerous choice
>> to ever indicate that the qualifier isn't required.
>>
>> Please consider removing this from your analysis. It seems dangerous and
>> just not a good idea. Besides, having it there has value to humans
>> reading the code.
>>
>>
>>
>



0

Please sign in to leave a comment.