1+ Given the evaluation criteria of, if all other things are equal, making the code easier to read and comprehend should be a priority, I think that this is a good idea.
Alan -----Original Message----- From: David Blevins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 5:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Standard @version tags On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 09:18:19AM +0100, Alex Blewitt wrote: > To revisit some of the earlier discussions regarding this: > > o We don't include author, because it's accessible from the CVS log o > Since we can also find out the date from the CVS log, there's no point > in having that in the source code as well > > It seemed to be the case that using $Date$ was therefore redundant, > because you could easily find out how old the source was from CVS. Not to point out the obvious, but all $foo$ tags are available from cvs log. I personally like the $Id$ tag which gives you everything. Yes, it's easy to check cvs log on one file, but a hundred files? The $Id$ tag (and other cvs tag) may be bothersome to committers, but it's a tremendous convenience to the thousands of users who may be looking through the source. -David ---------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more information and to register, visit <http://www.reuters.com/messaging> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of The Reuters Group.
