Re: [boost] Vera++

From: Maciej Sobczak (prog_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-10 03:30:38

John Femiani wrote:

>>> I'm pleased to announce the availability of Vera++:
>>>
>>> http://www.inspirel.com/vera/

> Wow I had no idea so many tabs crept into my code.

:-)

> When you report that a rule was broken I think you should list the rule
> name (i.e, L002)

Yes, this will be useful.

> and any transforms that could be used to fix the rule
> afterwards.

It's not that simple. The rules are just scripts and the set of scripts 
can be different on each installation. Same for transforms.
In general, rules have no idea about transforms and their meaning, so 
they cannot recommend anything.
On the other hand, some recommendations can be included in the 
documentation of each rule - at least those which are provided together 
with the tool.

To be frank, I'm not a big fan of automatic correction of code. This 
concept assumes that the *intended* form can be automatically deduced.
At the same time I assume that any violation is actually a question mark 
about the original intentions and that it can be reliably resolved only 
by human (I don't trust the code which was "fixed" without me being 
involved).

These two assumptions are (philosophically) incompatible.

> I look forward to hearing about more rules and transforms.

Some are already in the pipeline, coming soon.

> Also I noticed that in this binary you can turn rules off or on
> selectively, which is nice.

Of course. You can define your own profile files and parameter files and 
you can have many of them (imagine working on different projects that 
have different conventions).

> I was worried about that when I saw the
> other posts in this thread.

Somebody didn't check it before posting.

Regards,

-- 
Maciej Sobczak * www.msobczak.com * www.inspirel.com