From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-27 15:23:31
Gennaro Prota wrote:
> Ah sure. Also "my" "/\*.*?\*/" doesn't match /* */ style comments
> which actually span multiple lines (:-O). But the intent wasn't to be
> as accurate as a parser. We were talking about "tweaking" the regexes
> a bit to avoid false positives.
It's the false negatives that are worrisome. For example:
const char * x = "//foo"; int x = min(10,20);
Not that I think anyone would write such code. But strange things do
> In short we wanted them to be just
> more accurate than they are(n't) now.
OK. So you're saying we can make the comments conform to something the
inspection program will understand?
> If there's no danger to let
> violations go unnoticed with this, it seems still better than the
> current code. Example: this gives a false positive in
> //[the Tutte-Berge]
> //formula guarantees that
> // 2 * M(G) = min ( |V(G)| + |U| + o(G - U) )
> //where the minimum is taken over all subsets U of
> It wouldn't if we filtered out one-line comments. And if that were in
> a /* */ style comment, then simply adding "//" in front of the formula
> line would do the trick.
I guess you would have to be extremely careful, and especially limiting,
with the regex to have some degree of confidence false negatives don't
> PS: did you read my suggestion about commit triggers?
I don't remember reading it. But I do remember that was suggested some
time ago regarding inspection. I think I mentioned some problems with
that back then ;-)
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk