Back to the issue... (was RE: Squeak coding style...)
Doug Way
dway at mailcan.com
Wed Mar 3 06:16:53 UTC 2004
On Wednesday, March 3, 2004, at 09:35 PM, Lex Spoon wrote:
>
>> Perhaps this should be expanded so that uncommented methods (perhaps
>> testing for more than a smallish number of bytecodes?) also have such
>> a
>> comment automagically added? Since we have the writers initials
>> (normally) we could even make it be something like
>>
>
> Interesting idea, but IMHO no. I don't even quite agree that every
> class needs a comment; ...
I agree about not adding method comments automagically, but disagree
about class comments.
Sort of making up a figure here, but I'd say 98% of all classes in the
base release need to have class comments. Given that, I think it would
be reasonable to enforce that all new base release classes have to have
class comments, even if it means that the 2% of classes which don't
really need them have to have them too.
On the other hand, I'd say maybe, um, only 50% of so of methods really
need to have toplevel comments, so I agree that we don't want to
enforce the addition of such a large proportion of unneeded comments.
- Doug
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|