From: wel@EUROCONTROL.DE
Subject: Re: "Tag" (Was: Easily-Read C++? (N
Date: 14 Oct 94 15:50 GMT+0300
Date: 1994-10-14T15:50:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9410141050.AA02186@eurocontrol.d> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 374i3o$c87@starbase.neosoft.com
Robert Dewar <dewar@CS.NYU.EDU> writes .....
> Subject: Re: Easily-Read C++?
>
> There are to my mind three justifications for comments:
>
> Saying WHY you are doing something, and WHY you did it that way
>
> Saying WHY you did NOT do something, and WHY you did NOT
>
> Describing WHAT the code does, but at a higher level of abstraction
> than the code itself.
G'day Robert,
I totally agree with the above justifications and would also add the
following two:
Describing assumptions about the format or structure of an external
interface, e.g. an incoming message.
-- STAMINA message originator format
-- ORIG/ROLE/HQ
Describing the corresponding meaning for values when they are
defined. For example.
-- The following corresponds to the field RBT in the STORE.QTID section of
-- the PEAQTID file when the TYP field contains a 1 and RBN /= 0.
--
type Rlb_Data is ( Sdd_Coordinates,
Plot_Identification,
Track_Identification,
Sdd_Test_Picture_Display,
Track_Id_Or_System_Coordinates,
System_Coordinates,
Ssr_Code );
Regards,
parent reply other threads:[~1994-10-14 12:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <374i3o$c87@starbase.neosoft.com>]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox