Re: marking mystery code

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:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com |
                                | Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net |
                                | URL - http://www.iag.net/~dennison |
[It's uncommon in programs as large as GCC. -John]


--

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.