James Hawkins wrote: > 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 and Andrey:
I'm of the feeling the more comments the better and better documentation is a 'good thing'. If Andrey wants to put comments in, leave them there. Maybe someone who has no idea what is going on will read his comments and figure out a better way for testing. James McKenzie