|Re: Possible to write compiler to Java VM? email@example.com (1996-01-29)|
|Re: marking mystery code firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-02-13)|
|Re: marking mystery code email@example.com (Ted Dennison) (1996-02-14)|
|Re: marking mystery code firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-02-14)|
|Re: marking mystery code email@example.com (1996-02-16)|
|Re: marking mystery code firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-02-16)|
|Re: marking mystery code email@example.com (Mitchell Perilstein) (1996-02-16)|
|Re: marking mystery code firstname.lastname@example.org (Toon Moene) (1996-02-16)|
|Re: marking mystery code email@example.com (1996-02-17)|
|[3 later articles]|
|From:||Ted Dennison <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||14 Feb 1996 21:26:15 -0500|
|Organization:||Lockheed Martin Marine Systems|
Robert Dewar wrote:
> Incidentally, the practice of marking suspicious code seems a good one
> to me. If code is being read by more than its author (often sadly not
> the case), then a reader will often wonder what something means, and
> not necessarily be able to tell if it is a bug, or if it needs more
> documentation, or perhaps some invariant that is assumed is not 100%
> right etc.
It seems like a good practice to me as well. But an even better
practice it to leave a comment describing what the code does
when you write it.
> In GNAT we use ??? for this purpose, and there are quite a few ???
> around the place. I suspect that nearly all large projects have
> numerous instances of code which merits the ??? mark, but they don't
> get marked.
When ever I come across such code, I figure out what it does and
either comment it, or rewrite it more clearly (or remove it). Is
this an uncommon practice?
T.E.D. (Structured programming bigot)
| Work - mailto:email@example.com |
| Home - mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org |
| URL - http://www.iag.net/~dennison |
[It's uncommon in programs as large as GCC. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.