<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40184 >
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Jun 12 04:43:02 2008]: > > Madeline Book wrote: > > <URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40184 > > > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Jun 11 16:51:03 2008]: > >> > >> I only read sources, not yet tested. > >> > >> > >> - Please don't add new empty function headers. New code should have > >> function headers already when committed. > > > > What do you mean by "empty function header"? If you mean the > > > > /***************************** > > ... > > ******************************/ > > > > Then I only fill that in if the function name is not descriptive > > enough or there are some special conditions or side-effects that > > programmers need to be aware of (e.g. "you must free the return > > value yourself"). > > > > Do you think I should describe the functions more in the header? > > Previous discussions have agreed that empty comments are not helpful. > It's possible that the function name really says everything about the > function; in such a case maybe ... isn't needed. But I really > don't see any use to having ... as a comment. I actually like the whole 3 line "..." header as a visual separator between functions (thanks in large part due to the nice color difference in syntax hilighting). Anyway, that is just my preference; are you suggesting that empty headers should just be: /******************************** ********************************/ Or perhaps no header at all? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 勘弁してくれ。 _______________________________________________ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
