From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,90adbad7412869f0,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-15 22:08:42 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!demos1!glas!demos1!eurocontrol.de!wel
From: wel@EUROCONTROL.DE
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 14 Oct 94 15:50 GMT+0300
Subject: Re: "Tag" (Was: Easily-Read C++? (N
Message-ID: <9410141050.AA02186@eurocontrol.d>
References: <374i3o$c87@starbase.neosoft.com>
Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <notes@glas.apc.org>
Date: 1994-10-14T15:50:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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,