Messages in this thread | | | From | Tim Hockin <> | Subject | Re: Structure vs purism ? | Date | Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:00:12 -0600 (EST) |
| |
> One of the people I used to (and occasionally still do) work with used to > comment every single line of his C code with a translation of the C code to > English. My argument is always that you should comment (pref. with block > comments) why your code is doing something, not what it is doing. (i.e. if > you can't read C, you shouldn't be looking at or modifying C programs). I've
I have taken to writing a LOT of comments myself, lately. I think it is more to do with the idea that I like to scan comments for keywords, so I can jump around the code very easily.
I feel that if I can just skim comments, I should understand how the code works. I know many people that barely comment their code, and I have heard (at least once) that my code is generally easy to follow.
just my $0.02
ON-TOPIC: I am rewriting my pset patch to simplify and clean up a lot of bad code brought forward through revision after revision, and hopefully submit it for 2.3 when it is time.
Tim
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |