[CCC] False class comment

Stefan Matthias Aust sma at 3plus4.de
Tue Feb 29 19:10:47 UTC 2000


When commenting classes (I really like that CCC movement), I'd suggest to
mostly omit implementation details, code critics or discussions of
alternatives.

So the False's class comment is right in warning people that its methods
have no senders.  It might even give a hint how to use them but that's enough.

>Oh yeah, and this is true for both True and False.  So maybe we should
>just put this stuff in class Boolean, instead of duplicating it in two
>places.

Even more important IMHO is to always thing about that when reading a
comment it should be self contained.  That means we don't want to move
parts of the comment to the superclass only because that part is true for
multiple subclasses.  If the part is really large, we might thing about an
explicit "see superclass for more details" but othervise, I'd vote to a
small redundancy in favor for comments you can understand without knowing
the context.  Keep in mind, the comment is for references not just a part
of a larger explaination.

bye
--
Stefan Matthias Aust  //  Bevor wir fallen, fallen wir lieber auf.





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list