On 9/22/17, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> I couldn't disagree more about your "never" and "ever", but that's
> beside the point.  My complaint is about the comment itself.  Some
> authors like for their system to maintain a cohesive and consistently
> terse commenting style that _compliments_ the code, not supplants it.
> I wanted you to "read the code" so you would see and respect this
> existing original style of minimal, carefully-crafted word selections.
>
> I know you meant well, but when I saw "devious" it read like you were
> reacting, because they teach us in Smalltalk school that we should not
> override DNU.  Your long comment feels like you're "punishing" that
> 4 lines of code with 24 lines of over-explanation, replete with
> examples.  That's good stuff for the swiki,
+1 for having more explanations on the swiki

http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6508  UserInterfaceTheme

in particular

http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6576 UserInterfaceTheme design note

> but orthogonal to the rest
> of the style and a distraction from this particular code, IMO.
>
> Breathe...
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:57 AM, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18-09-2017, at 9:20 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> With all due respect, Tim, this comment reads like your "reaction".
>>> It doesn't leave the reader with any more clarity than from simply
>>> reading the code.
>>
>> “Read the code” is never an acceptable response to someone wanting to
>> understand what some code is *supposed* to do or how to use it. Except
>> just possibly if said code is so utterly beautifully written and complete
>> with all possible cases clearly handled and easily comprehend examples are
>> trivially findable that it really does just explain everything. I do not
>> believe any such piece of code has ever been written, nor is likely to be
>> so.
>>
>>
>> tim
>> --
>> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
>> Strange OpCodes: PBF: Pay Bus Fare
>>
>>
>>
>
>