Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:34:42 +0100 From: Jonathon McKitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@attbi.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Code layout and debugging time Message-ID: <20030423173442.GD70395@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <ehadehc2qo.deh@localhost.localdomain> References: <5.0.2.1.1.20030422171035.01c5e258@popserver.sfu.ca> <5.0.2.1.1.20030422205617.0387b378@popserver.sfu.ca> <ehadehc2qo.deh@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 08:27:27PM -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: : meaningful comments. It evolved, to a large degree, into a "comment : every line" rule, partly for esthetic reasons and partly just to avoid : having to worry about whether you'd be criticized for omitting too many. In our current project, one of the managers (we have a small software dept) has suggested a few macros to use as function headers. They are absolutely god-awful. Huge, useless, unmaintainable, space hogs. I refuse to use them. Picture a chunk of about 12 comment lines, complete with '=' banners at top and bottom, along with (rarely used) fields for inputs, outputs, summary, author, date, and so on. I have no problem providing the info for my methods, but I hate having to play with tab keys, '=' signs, and word wrapping in the process. Inevitably, the function outgrows the header, and the header becomes inaccurate. jonathon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030423173442.GD70395>