On Jun 2, 11:31 pm, Terry Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >Comments are harmless of course, but you still might miss an important comment >for function X if the comment gets shoved into function Y's node.
>For the minty case, dumb place to put the comment, no way to tell whether it >applies to the preceding or following def. Fair criticism towards minty, but I think that chances are reasonably low for such situation to happen in practice. The weirdness of minty comment is emphasized by the lack of docstring in the minty() method. Knowing that pylint is being a pest about missing docstrings, I tend to think that this is a highly motivating factor for the programmer to remove that comment and stick it into a method docstring :-) Now that you stated that you like (B), with your moral support I dare to make an assumption why it looks good and makes sense. I didn't see that when writing my previous post. There are differences between (B) and (C): - (B) is lower level than (C) - it would provide more smaller pieces and let me organize them as I wish. After all, I could "join" two neighbor nodes by simply using a container (not sure this is the standard term for a node that has empty body and is used to store a set of subnodes). - (B) can be used as base for (C), or for any other variation that implies some strategy of organizing neighbor nodes. In fact (B) can be used as a base for (A) too -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
