rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) (05/24/88)
> > File and function headers should be standardized and should contain > >enough information. Arguments, description, side effects, and > >modification history are good starters... ... > Yes, this is good, but these ideas are also a good source of unnecessary > verbosity. I detest when some define template headers like you mention > which empty fill half of an A4 page... Erland Sommarskog goes on to outline rules which can fill out the function header with nearly useless information--how to call it, etc. People may not realize just how much trouble it can cause. A few years back, I saw a procedure-heading standard which was so large and ornate that it was actually causing people to *avoid* writing procedures! They were working on a project which had deadlines (as opposed to lines-of-code-per- day goals:-), but they were absolutely required to build one of these giant headers for each function. As a result, it was often easier to write code in-line to perform the identical function in several different places than to split it out into a separate procedure. Write your own moral--something about programmers taking the easiest path so style rules should encourage the easiest path to be the same as the right one. -- Dick Dunn UUCP: {ncar,cbosgd,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...If you get confused just listen to the music play...