From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 22:39:09 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] sha1_name.c: simplify @-parsing in get_sha1_basic()
Message-ID: <CAMP44s2rQ1ZQJ2X6HJ6+SkFiA7ip5vh_-n=nNNNs+AFt2Dhbbw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0kJj2J6gg-M+CcLdaM1cXhnLGUWCYwUqc+XGdDDyhwo2Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> There's no need to associate one comment with one line of code.
>>> People can see clearly see the failure case following it.
>>
>> Is that the way you defend your comments? People can see that the
>> comment is wrong?
>
> In that case, all the comments are wrong.  Even the ones about @{N}
> and @{-N}, because we never really check @{\d+} or @{-\d+}.  Would you
> like to make the comments more painful to read and write?

If what I see in the code and what I read in the comments tell me
conflicting stories, I'd say the comments are not fulfilling their
purpose. Either add comments that explain what the code is _actually_
doing, or don't bother with them at all.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras