Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #6390
| From | Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: The worth of comments |
| Date | 2011-05-27 13:54 +0000 |
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Message-ID | <iroadr$3gj$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink) |
| References | <mailman.8533.1306409304.9058.python-list@python.org> <mailman.2126.1306435826.9059.python-list@python.org> <87sjs0apgh.fsf@benfinney.id.au> |
On 2011-05-27, Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Richard Parker <r.richardparker@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> On May 26, 2011, at 4:28 AM, python-list-request@python.org wrote:
>>
>> > My experience is that comments in Python are of relatively low
>> > usefulness. (For avoidance of doubt: not *zero* usefulness, merely
>> > low.)
I've seen plenty of comments who's usefulness was not zero. It was
less than zero.
>> > I can name variables, functions and classes with sensible,
>> > self- documenting names.
>
> I am largely in agreement with this position (including the ???not *zero*
> usefulness??? caveat).
>
>> I'm less inclined to use comments on each line, or selected lines, but
>> rather use block comments instead. They require more thought and time
>> to write; however, the intended functionality of the code that follows
>> can be described in full.
>
> This I disagree with. If a section of code is interesting enough to
> deserve an explanation, then it is better to capture it in a
> helpfully-named function with its doc string having the explanation.
I consider docstrings to be the same as comments, so there's not
really much disagreement.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Am I in Milwaukee?
at
gmail.com
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The worth of comments Richard Parker <r.richardparker@comcast.net> - 2011-05-26 11:50 -0700
Re: The worth of comments Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-05-27 11:42 +1000
Re: The worth of comments Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-27 13:54 +0000
Re: The worth of comments Irmen de Jong <irmen@-NOSPAM-xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-27 19:05 +0200
Re: The worth of comments Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-27 17:53 +0000
Re: The worth of comments Irmen de Jong <irmen.NOSPAM@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-28 15:09 +0200
Re: The worth of comments python@bdurham.com - 2011-05-28 09:34 -0400
Re: The worth of comments Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-05-28 09:36 -0400
Re: The worth of comments Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 00:02 +1000
Re: The worth of comments Irmen de Jong <irmen.NOSPAM@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-28 16:05 +0200
Re: The worth of comments Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-05-29 12:47 +1200
Re: The worth of comments Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-05-29 11:41 +1000
Re: The worth of comments Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-05-29 23:05 +1200
Re: The worth of comments Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-29 14:43 +0000
Re: The worth of comments Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-05-29 11:39 -0400
Re: The worth of comments Irmen de Jong <irmen.NOSPAM@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-29 03:49 +0200
Re: The worth of comments Alister Ware <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2011-05-29 17:26 +0000
Re: The worth of comments Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2011-05-31 14:47 +0000
Re: The worth of comments Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-05-26 22:08 -0400
Re: The worth of comments Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 15:13 +1000
Re: The worth of comments Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-05-27 09:25 -0400
Re: The worth of comments Tim Roberts <timr@probo.com> - 2011-05-27 00:02 -0700
Re: The worth of comments "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> - 2011-05-27 09:29 -0400
RE: The worth of comments "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmchase.com> - 2011-05-27 14:17 -0400
csiph-web