On 8/28/06, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 04:58:55PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But reading the code a question arise: what says the philosphy
> of this project about comments?
I follow the rules about comments defined in The Practice Of
Programming by Kernighan and Pike. Comments are only supplied if
the code isn't self-explaining enough and needs more context
information. However I agree that some parts would gain
readability and provide a better understanding if there were
comments. Though, no comments are better than wrong or outdated
comments, which are misleading.
I agree with you. I don't like having 50% of a vim-screen filled up
with comments.
What I miss is a dictionary for 1 or 2 letters variable names...some
kind of README.HACKS like:
mw: master width
...
twin: title window
with the meaning of each important non-self-explanatory variable and
some comment when required. You ignore what a variable is for and a
1-sec grep will be enough.
This can be maintained easily up-to-date (very few changes) and will
improve a lot the readability.
If anyone is willing to document dwm, a wiki can be the way to go.
I can host it if 10kloc.org is in favor of the idea but hasn't the
time or resources.
regards,
--
Julián
