//@ignore_rule L001
I agree on this with some previous post: I don't think that is a good option, mainly for two reasons. First it implies adding comments in the code to control some external tool, second if you start that path, you'll end up with a comment to control how vi indents, emacs options, vera++ options, another tools options...
David
Line numbers change a lot when files are edited so how would an external file deal with line-by-line exclusion? Also if one of the points of an analysis rule is to help enforce a convention, isn't _also_ nice to show in the source that you deliberately chose to break convention? If this is one of those never ending controversies that is cool. I just personally like in-lining stuff (like using doxygen). BTW a Vera++ rule exclusion does not seem like vi or emacs preferences as I understand it. Somehow analysis rules, especially where they are broken, seem like they are an important part of the code itself. If a rule should be excluded from a part of a file, that is not just a matter of one users preference. Maybe the better analogy would be pragmas that enable or disable compiler warnings in a source file (VC8), or the inline structured comments allowed by doxygen. Also I was trying to follow the convention I have seen in eclipse, which uses inline comments for Java. (I don't know what the underlying analysis tool being used was) -- John