> If you can't/don't look at the source file,
> then comments aren't going to help (except
> in the case of something like docstrings in
> Python).
I strongly disagree. Now, perhaps we're
talking about different things, here?
Usually, in the header file (C++), there
won't be any source code, except for
method declarations. A common example:
/** Projects an object from 3D to 2D using
the method of Alexander The Great.
\param 3D structure to be projected
\returns 2D projection
*/
public Proj2D get2Dfrom3D(Proj3D param);
The above is, to me, very clear and
consistent. Not to mention, easily
handled with e.g. Doxygen to create a
readable documentation.
I don't see how this is dislikeable. Please
explain. Perhaps the above IS what you
ment by "docstrings"? For Java, one has the
JavaDocs, a great tool, provided one will
comment each method and variable used.
>> Now, i'm getting the signal that it's done
> in a different way in Python.
>
> I'm not sure how you concluded that from this thread.
The below, more or less. :)
"What I really can't stand are the
pointy-haired comment blocks at the
beginnings of C/C++ functions that do
things like tell you the name and return
type of the function and list the names
and types of the parameters."
Please note that i DO NOT argue against one
way or another. I simply expressed surprise
since i've been tought otherwise earlier
and, maybe, there's a larger picture than
what i've seen this far. As stated before,
snakeology is a very new area to me. Yet. ;)
--
Regards
Konrad Viltersten
--------------------------------
sleep - a substitute for coffee for the poor
ambition - lack of sense to be lazy
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
