[CCC] False class comment

David Pennell dpennell at quallaby.com
Wed Mar 1 00:37:39 UTC 2000


I would vote for a simple connective phrase and a link to the superclass
comment.

-david

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lex Spoon [mailto:lex at cc.gatech.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 6:58 PM
> To: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: [CCC] False class comment
>
>
> Bijan Parsia <bparsia at email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > [snip]
> > >> 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.
> >
> > Even in the spirit of anti-redundancy, I do agree that comments
> should be
> > reasonably non-fragmented. But actual duplication leads to a degree of
> > maintenance pain. So perhaps an inclusion mechanism would be
> > feasible? After all, we already have links, it can't be *that* hard to
> > pull the actual text in.
> >
>
>
> Morph and its 245 subclasses would form a rather striking example....
> Granted, True/False is just two clasess, and so it isn't such a big
> deal.  IMHO, though, people reading Smalltalk code should just expect to
> have to look at the superclasses for the whole picture.
>
> But of course, redundent comments are better than none.  :)
>
>
> Lex
>





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list