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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,629e11b80bdec45d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-14 17:08:17 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.sj.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!skynet.be!freenix!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail
From: "Beard, Frank" <beardf@spawar.navy.mil>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: RE: powerful editors versus IDEs (was: License to Steal)
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:07:21 -0400
Organization: ENST, France
Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
Message-ID: <mailman.989885292.1844.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 989885293 89876 137.194.161.2 (15 May 2001 00:08:13
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 00:08:13 +0000 (UTC)
To: "'comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org'" <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Return-Path: <beardf@spawar.navy.mil>
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.3
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada.eu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada>,
	<mailto: comp.lang.ada-request@ada.eu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway <comp.lang.ada.ada.eu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada>,
	<mailto: comp.lang.ada-request@ada.eu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ada.eu.org/pipermail/comp.lang.ada/>
Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Xref: archiver1.sj.google.com comp.lang.ada:7506
Date: 2001-05-14T20:07:21-04:00


-----Original Message-----
From: Anders Wirzenius [mailto:anders.wirzenius@pp.qnet.fi]

> A method I used to practise in a former programmer life was to add
comments
> at the end of each updated line. When the current updating task was done,
> tested and released, the line end comments where removed and replaced by a
> short description in the header of the module. With that method we didn't
> have to bother what comments to write in the header each time we changed
> something. The summary was easy to write by reading through the line end
> comments.
>
>Anders Wirzenius

While that sounds perfectly reasonable and better than our current
approach, we are never allowed to go back and do that.  We have to
have a justification for checking the unit out, updating it, and
checking it back in.  To clean up the code is not sufficient.  So,
some poor guy down the road will have to maintain it with the noise
in place.

I would rather not put it there in the first place.