From: Michael Snyder <Michael.Snyder@palmsource.com>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>,
mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, deuling@de.ibm.com,
pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [Patch]: Little Cleanup
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 20:40:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1173213599.29183.103.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070306195211.GA18974@adacore.com>
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 11:52 -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > > The place to document the meaning of a function's return value is at
> > > the function, not at each of its call sites.
> >
> > So you are saying that it's normal to expect the code reader to
> > constantly jump to the function's definition trying to understand what
> > its callers try to accomplish?
>
> Then perhaps this suggests that the function could be renamed into
> something clearer? But otherwise, yes, I agree with Jim and Mark,
> because maintaining these comments everywhere is going to be an issue.
Yes. The logical place for a function to be documented is
at the definition -- not at the call.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-03-06 20:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-03-02 7:04 Markus Deuling
2007-03-03 9:08 ` Pedro Alves
2007-03-03 10:29 ` Eli Zaretskii
2007-03-05 5:59 ` Markus Deuling
2007-03-05 21:04 ` Eli Zaretskii
2007-03-05 21:23 ` Mark Kettenis
2007-03-05 21:23 ` Eli Zaretskii
2007-03-05 22:01 ` Jim Blandy
2007-03-06 4:22 ` Eli Zaretskii
2007-03-06 19:53 ` Joel Brobecker
2007-03-06 20:40 ` Michael Snyder [this message]
2007-03-06 21:03 ` Eli Zaretskii
2007-03-06 22:10 ` Ulrich Weigand
2007-03-07 7:36 ` Markus Deuling
2007-03-07 12:15 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-03-07 16:34 ` Eli Zaretskii
2007-03-09 4:48 ` Markus Deuling
2007-03-09 16:21 ` Ulrich Weigand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1173213599.29183.103.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=michael.snyder@palmsource.com \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=deuling@de.ibm.com \
--cc=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jimb@codesourcery.com \
--cc=mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl \
--cc=pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox