nathans wrote:
> [...] In general, such XXX comments (we have none, nada, zero of
> these in libpcp currently) [...]
"libpcp" and "XXX" constitutes special pleading. There are hundreds
of notes-to-self in the whole codebase, expressing uncertainty or
incompleteness or future work or suggestions - some even in libpcp.
> Code with explicit issue tracker numbers may be OK (prefer the fix!)
> - and detailed discussions can live there.
This sounds like a welcome climbdown from your earlier complaint about
filing too many bug reports.
> [...] Otherwise, we end up with incomprehensible ramblings like
> this gem, where even the author doesn't seem to know how the code
> works:
>
> // error already noted XXX where?
> goto out0;
That is overstating the matter. The code works. There was evidently
some uncertainty about a minor quality-of-implementation matter. You
are welcome to inquire about it during or after code review. But at
the end of the day, surely the fact that the marker is there is a
*good thing*: it brings attention to the alleged "not knowing how the
code works" point.
Would you seriously prefer the same code but no marker at all? That
is one possible outcome of your exorcise-XXX suggestion, if you keep
going down this "try to embarrass" route.
Note also that it would be a misrepresentation to suggest that my XXX
notes are generally of this kind. Onlookers are welcome to read &
form their own judgement.
> Chatty opinions about code [...]? ... that's not helpful.
Please express what "chattiness" means in a way that someone else
can judge, and record it in the HACKING file.
> Amongst some 26 other XXXs in that particular utility, hmm. Clearly
> this is a coding-stylistic thing for some folk and not others, but it
> makes the code alot less readable - to my eye anyway. [...]
If those 26 XXX's in some 5200 lines are such an impediment, this
may cure the symptoms:
% perl -p -i -e 's/XXX/Note:/g' *
- FChE
|