From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 21 Apr 93 22:20:01 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus
.sura.net!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!thinman@ucbvax.B
erkeley.EDU  (Technically Sweet)
Subject: Re: Documenting Individual Objects
Message-ID: <thinmanC5uu1E.Hyo@netcom.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

johnson@cs.uiuc.edu (Ralph Johnson) writes:

>> ...
>The reason for this is that (in my opinion) documenting a single
>class is easy, and is similar to traditional function-oriented
>documentation, but documenting object-interactions is much harder.
>For example, in Smalltalk I am perfectly happy with class comments
>and method comments as documentation for a class, but they fall apart
>as documentation for how objects work together.

Perhaps you should be able to specify when and how objects interact?
Then you wouldn't need to document... the code would serve.

-- 

Lance Norskog
thinman@netcom.com
Data is not information is not knowledge is not wisdom.