From: Eric Woodruff (Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-09 23:04:53
Well, my position on the issue with SGI's std::map is that
1) it's meant for only the user's compiler, and SGI -- you shouldn't be
looking at it
2) SGI is welcome to use all the comments it wants in the case of gruesome
templates, because they can never be feasibly cleaned up, it's just like the
boost macros I was talking about before. A lot needs to be communicated
through second-class methods like comments in those cases, because it can be
difficult to make everything at that level first-class (meaning that a
symbol is recognized, understood and enforced, to be used correctly, by the
----- Original Message -----
From: David B. Held
Sent: Monday, 2002:September:09 23:58
Subject: Re: Re: Tabs creep back into source files
"Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Yeah, but comments should be rare, and most importantly they should
> be ugly, just like reinterpret_cast<> was intended to be, to make sure
> that problem that is commented about is hopefully fixed ASAP.
> Therefore, they SHOULDN'T ALIGN. They should cause the reader
> much pain!
I'm glad that you either have the luxury of writing code that is always
trivially understandable, or you have such an high IQ that all "correct"
code is immediately obvious to you. However, others of us are not
nearly so insightful or are not afforded such luxuries, and there are
plenty of times when comments are both appropriate and do not
signify a coding error. Furthermore, some of us may like to put these
comments in nicely aligned columns. I think a very good example is
the SGI implementation of std::map. Take a good look at the insert()
functions, and tell me that A) they do not need comments, or B) they
have problems that need to be fixed.
Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk