From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15924 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2007 19:53:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 15909 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Mar 2007 19:53:29 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:53:23 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B107C48CE33; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:53:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 01807-01-3; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:53:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (unknown [70.71.0.212]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031DF48CE90; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:51:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B8103E7B38; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:52:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:53:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Jim Blandy , mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, deuling@de.ibm.com, pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [Patch]: Little Cleanup Message-ID: <20070306195211.GA18974@adacore.com> References: <45E7CC17.5040304@de.ibm.com> <45E93AE5.5050704@portugalmail.pt> <45EBB15E.4000602@de.ibm.com> <200703052119.l25LJKVw021917@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-03/txt/msg00058.txt.bz2 > > 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. -- Joel