Tim, you disagreed:

>I completely disagree. It *explains* what the code is intended to do  
>and the way that it does it. Simply sticking the code in there would  
>be completely unreasonable since it is non-obvious how it provides  
>the correct result.
>
>Comments that explain the intent, the purpose, the reason, for the  
>code are crucial to maintaining a system. The old joke "comments? why  
>do think it's called code?" sums up the antithesis of responsible  
>programming that seems to be the normal approach. Yes, reading the  
>code tells you what it *does* do (until you find a compiler bug for  
>example) but it tells you nothing about what it was intended to do,  
>what spec it was putatively meeting or what limits on its  
>functionality were known about.

And I completely agree with the above paragraph.

Regards,
Wolfgang