From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-47045-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 5281 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2007 16:04:38 -0000
Received: (qmail 5273 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2007 16:04:37 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:04:30 +0000
Received: (qmail 14381 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2007 16:04:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 5 Jan 2007 16:04:28 -0000
To: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
Cc: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>,  Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>, 	  gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFC: MI - Detecting change of string contents with variable objects
References: <17797.65268.689590.797944@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> 	<20070104042038.GA3918@nevyn.them.org> 	<17820.39505.966623.305338@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> 	<200701050004.30631.ghost@cs.msu.su> 	<17821.42314.506114.619107@kahikatea.snap.net.nz>
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:04:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <17821.42314.506114.619107@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> (Nick Roberts's message of "Fri, 5 Jan 2007 14:09:30 +1300")
Message-ID: <m3k601o3x0.fsf@codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00194.txt.bz2


Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz> writes:
> Too many comments get in the way of the code and I think the name is fairly
> self explanatory.  Most of the simple functions don't have a comment and AFAIK
> a comment for them is not a GNU or GDB coding standard.

I see this differently.  I find comments above functions explaining
their interface, as opposed to their strategy for implementing that
interface, to be a real help.  I'm ready to admit I may be chattier
than is helpful within function bodies, but leaving interfaces
unexplained detracts from their utility.