为什么FxCop坚持这个？

问题描述

我会写


BaseClass var;

.....

if（var is DerivedClass）

{

DerivedClass derivedVar =（DerivedClass）var;

DoSomething（derivedVar）;

}


不幸的是公司政策要求FxCop和FxCop抱怨上面的

。 FxCop想要这样：


BaseClass var;

DerivedClass derivedVar;

....

derivedVar = var as DerivedClass;

if（derivedVar！= null）

{

DoSomething（derivedClass）;

}

我认为在一个范围内定义一个变量是没有意义的

并不是真的需要只是为了安慰FxCop。 ： - /

解决方案

嗯，这是一个品味问题，不是吗？我的意思是，让

来改变变量的范围是很烦人的，但是这样做两次

的效率很低（因为它是原来的代码）。


所以...选择你的毒药：不合适的变量范围或双倍工作

工作没有好处。

< snip>

好​​吧，如果你愿意的话，你可以随时添加一个额外的范围，

虽然这很难看。我怀疑它抱怨的原因是

，因为你实际上两次做同样的工作。

表现的差异可能微不足道，但这可能是

的原因...


-

Jon Skeet - < sk *** @ pobox.com>
博客：

如果回复群组，请不要给我发邮件

I would write

BaseClass var;
.....
if(var is DerivedClass)
{
DerivedClass derivedVar = (DerivedClass)var;
DoSomething(derivedVar);
}

Unfortunately company policies requires FxCop and FxCop complains about
the above. FxCop wants it this way:

BaseClass var;
DerivedClass derivedVar;
....
derivedVar = var as DerivedClass;
if(derivedVar != null)
{
DoSomething(derivedClass);
}
I think it''s kinda pointless to define a variable in a scope where it
isn''t really needed just to comfort FxCop. :-/

解决方案

Well, it''s a matter of taste, isn''t it? I mean, it''s annoying to have
to change the variable''s scope, but then it''s inefficient to do the
cast twice (as it was in the original code).

So... choose your poison: inappropriate variable scope or doing double
the work to no good purpose.

<snip>

Well, you can always add an extra level of scoping if you want,
although that''s pretty ugly. I suspect the reason it complains is
because you''re effectively doing the same work twice. The difference in
performance is likely to be negligible, but that''s likely to be the
reason...

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

这篇关于为什么FxCop坚持这个？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！