On 1/11/2011 6:46 PM, Robert Dodier wrote:
> On 1/11/11, Raymond Toy<toy.raymond at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I, however, partly disagree with you and Robert. I think part of the
>> comment you gave *IS* relevant. I don't care too much about the name,
>> but surely the comment about supporting more than one non-T condition is
>> good. The reference to dim-mcond is good too. (Things in maxima are
>> spread all over and are often times not where I expect them to be. Grep
>> is my friend.)
> Well, the stuff about MCOND expressions is fine;
> any technical stuff is fine, which I said before.
> I was reacting to the dates& authors business.
> I guess I didn't make that clear.
>
...
I have mixed feelings about this.
One of the reasons to have some historical background in the code is to
provide
additional clues for why the program is the way it is, and not some
other plausible
way.
One possible unfortunate scenario goes like this.
1. Person X designs a new feature and implements it, and it works to the
satisfaction of X.
2. Person Y uses the code and finds it unsatisfactory, actually fixes
and generalizes
it so that it works for both X and Y.
3. Person Z uses the program but finds it not quite satisfactory and
decides to
"fix" it by replacing it by something equivalent to the simplistic
version of X, and then adding his own
features. Why? He doesn't understand Y's code. He just wipes it out, and
so unless Y goes back and tests the code, the new version, X+Z seems to
be just fine.
And it is, for almost everyone except Y.
This happens.
Then
(2') Person Y uses the code but it is broken. He restores his old code.
etc.
Now, all of this can be handled using CVS IF everyone reads all the
comments
and understands all the parts. And having comments in the code might
not prevent it from happening. But certainly the amount of comment is not
such a burden that extra stuff (if accurate) should be discarded.
I have
heard arguments that any comments are bad. Code should be
so clear that comments are not only unnecessary, but hazardous, because
the program might be changed and then the pre-existing comments would be
misleading, so better not to have any.
I disagree with that view :)
RJF