Doug Way <dway at mailcan.com> wrote:
> 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.

Thank you, thank you. I was thinking me and Tim were somehow
abbe-normals here for a second. Phew. ;)

> 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.

Yes - and again - I of course repeat my "How do I know if it is
intentionally left blank or simply blank because the original authors
were sloppy?"-argument.

> 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.

Just to make sure - I never suggested that. I merely suggested that
perhaps we should use proper english sentences and perhaps standardize
on a blank line after a method comment + indentation of method code one
tab. But obviously having a few rules is tabu in this community, sigh. 

Sometimes I really do understand why some people think Squeak is a mess,
especially if we can't even acknowledge the fact that we need to shapen
things up a bit.

> - Doug

regards, Göran