Wolfgang, all,

I think that Bobby Wolff first presented in a paper or 
article this idea of two kinds of comments in every 
method. One to explain method semantic, the other to 
explain method code.
The first one was a must and the second was not 
desired, but may be inevitable.
He paid especial attention on building polymorphic 
hierarchies by this technique.

> Alejandro,
> I think I got your point about messages vs. methods.
> 
> But I believe that assuming that two methods with the same
> selector implement the same message (semantics) does not hold,
> and is hard to enforce.
Yes, you cannot enforce that everywhere. But, within 
a polymorphic hierarchy, I think is a must. If it cannot 
be put the same semantic comment to an inherited method; 
then that method is not compliant with its super and can 
not be used within that hierarchy in a polimorphic way.
Wolff goes further and suggests that the comment should 
be "See super implementor." based on a series of facts 
that enumerates on his paper.

Another 2c.
Regards.

	Emilio

> 
> Furthermore, a method comment could not only contain
> the message comment, but also information about the
> particular implementation of that message.
> 
> Just my 2c...
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>