Re: Redeclaring overrides
Re: Redeclaring overrides
- Subject: Re: Redeclaring overrides
- From: jgo <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 20:33:25 -0700
>
Ondra Cada <email@hidden> Sun, 2001 Aug 19 22:45:44 +0200
>
> John C. Randolph (JCR) wrote at Sun, 2001 Aug 19 11:55:05 -0700:
>
> I call it "obstruction of maintainability." It's fine and dandy if
>
> you're always going to be the maintainer of your code, but for many
>
> others that is not the case.
>
>
Actually, I see it from the exactly different point of view:
>
>
(i) I see it as -- FOR EASY MAINTAINING!!! -- I should document
>
in headers call facts which are important and relevant for
>
using and/or subclassing my class;...
>
(iii) I personally find a header which contains the relevant
>
information only -- and *NOT* heaps of irrelevant one
>
(relevance measured by the point (i) above) -- *MUCH*
>
better to aid maintenance, as compared with a header
>
which contains heaps of information needed for nothing...
This hits on the issue of contextual information in both the code
comments and the docs. It appears that some folks prefer sparse,
scattered tiny bits of information, while others prefer verbose,
voluminous, contextually inter-linked information, all viewable
at once (and, in books, illustrations that are viewable at the
same time as the words related to them rather than in a different
chapter, section, or page). Of course, there is a place for each.
John G. Otto, Eagle Scout, Knight, Cybernetic Praxeologist
Existence, Consciousness, Identity, Life, Liberty, Property, Privacy, Justice