[erlang-questions] Style wars: junk comments
Wed Sep 12 12:41:30 CEST 2012
Just in case that semantic categories means that functions that belong
together are placed together, I solve that kind of problem by having the
same prefix on functions that deal with the same thing.
On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 12:10 +0200, wrote:
> > I can understand that if you know what you're looking for (and just want
> > to check, say, function signature), then the alphabetic ordering may help.
> > However, if one wants to find out what is particular module
> > doing/responsible for, I would really like to learn how can alphabetic
> > ordering help.
> Just to make it clear, I was advocating that the list of
> function names in an -export directive should be sorted,
> while the function definitions should be grouped into
> semantic categories.
> Two historic comparisons:
> * the Burroughs Extended Algol compiler had a long list
> of forward procedure declarations near the front, each
> with an associated sequence number. Then the actual
> procedure definitions were grouped semantically. One
> typically kept a couple of punched cards stuck in the
> six-inch listing as bookmarks, one or more of them in
> the index. You could find your way around in this
> huge listing with astonishing ease.
> * the Smalltalk 5-pane browser (yes, I know I said 4-pane
> in a previous essage, but I'm typing with a laptop on
> my chest and am not catching all my typos).
> Top, left to right:
> class categories (think 'applications'), alphabetically
> classes within current category, alphabetically
> method categories within class (semantic sections), alphabetically
> methods within category, alphabetically
> Edit window for class definition, class comment,
> or method definition.
> Add in the 'find definition' 'find callers' and other
> single keystroke operations, and you can really *fly*
> in that interface. Oh, guess what? No junk comments!
> If you want to find out what a module is doing or responsible
> for, you should be reading the module comment, not looking at
> the functions. And there should BE one that TELLS you.
> Note that if you have semantic -sections, then
> egrep '^-(module|section)' foobar.erl
> would tell you quite a bit about what the module is up to.
More information about the erlang-questions