From owner-freebsd-current Tue Dec 9 08:43:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA15074 for current-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:43:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current) Received: from crh.cl.msu.edu (crh.cl.msu.edu [35.8.1.24]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA15061 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:43:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu) Received: (from henrich@localhost) by crh.cl.msu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA04851; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:43:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from henrich) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:43:31 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Henrich Message-Id: <199712091643.LAA04851@crh.cl.msu.edu> To: perhaps@yes.no, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VM system info Newsgroups: lists.freebsd.current References: <66jnt0$ddh$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #1 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In lists.freebsd.current you write: >(4) Code is not commented. If necessary, the function comment can > contain a reference to external documentation that explain the > code. This should only happen for core functionality that can't > be be implemented simply; in other cases, either drop the > functionality or re-implement until it is simple. If something is > so complex that it needs external documentation, it had better be > non-changing. YUCK! All code should be commented! Just to make things entirely clear, just because the author things this code "is so simple, everyone must understand it" does not make it so. >(5) Code prerequisites is documented through assert() or similar > functionality. Egads! I wish assert() was thrown down to the pits of hell. Its a programmers cop out. In almost no circumstance does one ever need to assert. If you find an error condition, COPE as best you can! Especially in the kernel. -Crh -- Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@msu.edu http://pilot.msu.edu/~henrich