> > ... a fellow programmer requested that I use comments to document a > > very basic use of a ternary operator because not all programmers would > > necessarily be familiar with it. > Now, his stance is kinda dumb, but on the other hand, if the use were a > bit strange and not entirely obvious at a quick glance, then yes, it > should be commented. If (of course) it is something like: > (i ? "true" : "false") > > Then there is no reason to comment it. It was and there wasn't. For the curious, I won the argument, and did not end up commenting it. > > I also admit to some ignorance as to the state of the "coding" > > document... > See the FAQ. It's still quite valid on that point. *grin* I will also admit that I was familiar with the FAQ answer on that topic, but didn't find that answer very satisfying. :-) How does one become a contributor to that document? I wouldn't mind spending some time on it, but since I also have a life outside Circle, I don't want to squander that time by duplicating the work of others. Mike -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | | Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/05/01 PST