|
Fixed: that "paste link over highlight can truncate the link" bug is still there, I see...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Bacon Mac-n-Cheese Quesadilla[^]
No explanation needed.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
No, I believe and explanation is in order. 
|
|
|
|
|
Brisingr Aerowing wrote: No explanation More bacon needed.
FTFY. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
The recipe omitted a step:
6. Call 911. After you've eaten this, your myocardial infarction will begin almost immediately.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Take out the Mac 'n Cheese, then we can talk.
|
|
|
|
|
Am I the only one who wants a feature in visual studio (or any other IDE) that can have images as comments? The idea would be that you have some sort of button in the side bar (when an image was attached at that location) and if you hover over it you see the image you attached.
This image could contain a use-case, a drawing or a print out of a file you read in as example, ...
If we think further you could attach paragraphs of the functional/technical documentation that are relevant for this piece of code. (but that might be overdoing it too)
Just thinking out loud, but I feel the plain text comment is not sufficient 
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't want to have that per line of code. Imagine the PM demanding that you add the relevant Use Case / Requirement paragraph per LOC.
Requirements Engineers, Testers and so on aren't developers, this being the reason why they write a documents and not code. Linking these roles might become a problem. Think about persistence.
|
|
|
|
|
 You write so many comments then? I doubt there will be many managers enforcing the developers to include every single line of documentation to the code.
In short, this can never be the goal ?
|
|
|
|
|
V. wrote: You write so many comments then
No. But we're discussing enough about what and how to commente, imagine Requirement & Use Case Engineering people being dragged into the very same discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
I think having an attachment cover a section of code (say a method or a class) was what V. was getting at.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting idea. And how should those attachments be noted in the code? A path in the comments? (With something like ATTACHMENT: starting it?) should paths be relative to the solution directory or the project directory? Should they be absolute (would break on other systems)?
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
I can think of several options
They're part of the solution and thus (in my opinion) relative to that.
|
|
|
|
|
I see.
I just thought of linking to a solution item from a comment. Basically the file is included in the solution (using add item) and referenced in a comment by name. No more path issues.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Getting some people to add XML comments to methods is hard enough - can you imaging just what pictures some people are going to attach to their code? 
I'll give it a miss, thanks.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Good point(s).
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
That's not a real argument is it?
Question is, if it was available, would you use it. Don't shift responsibility to someone else now  .
|
|
|
|
|
Think of it this way: if you could post images in the Lounge, I probably would.
But...so would spammers, viagra salesmen, trolls, and general morons.
Which is why we don't have it!
And do you really want your source code to expand that much? My backups are big enough as it is, without potentially adding an image per line of code (or even per method). You and I both know that if you can, some idiot on the team will do it...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the risk is limited. It isn't a website and most teams are limited in size.
You could build in a feature that seriously limits the file size per "attachment" and it will always remain more tedious to add an image than to write a comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Or just make a link that, when clicked, opens the file.
Shouldn't be all that hard to do. I don't know anything about Visual Studio AddIns/Extensions/etc, though.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion you need to separate things.
Code comments serve a different purpose than technical specs and to make it "worse", they have different life-cycles. They can change separately without a strict need to one affect the other.
So in your code comments you can eventually refer to a section in the technical spec, but attaching pieces of documentation directly to code would be a maintenance mess.
|
|
|
|
|
My code is self explanatory
modified 19-Nov-18 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know! I've seen it, it explains, in no uncertain terms,
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
The "variable" "naming" "convention" is particulary convincing in this aspect.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
