On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> wrote: > /* > * File: > * Summary: > * Written by: > */ > > What's the point of these? Especially the first and the last.
None, as far as I'm aware. The summary is useful, but everything else is not. > What file it is -- uhm, look at your editor's status line. > > Who made the first edit to the file -- git will tell you that including the > authorship of every single line back to the start of DCSS. For anything > earlier, this data is ridiculously inaccurate anyway; the code has been > tossed between files so many times it doesn't make sense to attribute whole > files to people. > > Do you guys think it's ok to axe these lines? I think it would be a good idea to axe these or replace them with documentation in the Doxygen format. For instance, I replaced the header of mon-death.cc (which I created when copying from mon-stuff.cc) with: /** * @file * @section DESCRIPTION * * File: mon-death.cc. * Summary: Contains monster death functionality, including Dowan and Duvessa, * Kirke, Pikel, shedu and spirits. **/ I see no reason why we can't replace this with: /** * @file * @section DESCRIPTION * * Contains monster death functionality, including Dowan and Duvessa, * Kirke, Pikel, shedu and spirits. **/ This information is then interesting and used by Doxygen. I'm not sure if we need the @section line, but I'm pretty sure that Doxygen fetches these comments, parses them, and then presents them in pretty ?ML/LaTeX etc. -J ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d _______________________________________________ Crawl-ref-discuss mailing list Crawl-ref-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/crawl-ref-discuss
