Message171548
| Author |
ezio.melotti |
| Recipients |
chris.jerdonek, eric.araujo, ezio.melotti, xdegaye |
| Date |
2012年09月28日.22:58:56 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1348873136.82.0.852616473139.issue16079@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
It doesn't necessary have to be limited to methods, anything duplicate might turn out to be a bug. If the script doesn't mix scopes there shouldn't be too many false positives, and if they are it shouldn't be a big deal if they are reported on the changed file by `make patchcheck`.
> I'm not sure if there is ever a use case for duplicate
> method names. Is there?
Nothing that can't be done in a more elegant way afaict.
It might make sense for variables though, where you have e.g.:
foo = do_something(x)
foo = do_something_more(foo) |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2012年09月28日 22:58:56 | ezio.melotti | set | recipients:
+ ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, chris.jerdonek, xdegaye |
| 2012年09月28日 22:58:56 | ezio.melotti | set | messageid: <1348873136.82.0.852616473139.issue16079@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012年09月28日 22:58:56 | ezio.melotti | link | issue16079 messages |
| 2012年09月28日 22:58:56 | ezio.melotti | create |
|