On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Andrey Turkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We know my implementation and Windows implementation behave identically and > this is documented in tests. At this > point you and me both happy about the comment in tests and tests in general, > right? > Now back to the example. In this example something somewhere went wrong > because of Windows/Wine differences, > e.g. previous memory allocation failed or something. Completely unrelated > to this particular function, and our Joe should > not spend his time trying to understand the function itself - and code > comments do just that. Joe read the comment, understand > that NULL pointer should not be passed in the first place, and continue his > quest. Sounds useful for me, and certainly looks > harmless (apart from causing this thread to go on). >
If you want it in, then leave it in. That said, I think you're discounting the usefulness of the tests. In this situation, the first thing I would do is look at the tests and see whether this behavior has been tested and what the results are. If it hasn't been tested, then my first step towards fixing the bug is to add the appropriate tests. Maybe we have different philosophies on comments; I don't like to comment things are obvious, and the tests make this point obvious. -- James Hawkins
