[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [cdt-dev] typos and missing documentation in the CDT source code
|
I agree with you 100%. I have probably lost more productivity over the
last four years working on CDT due to trying to figure out someone else's
undocumented code than I have anything else.
However, documenting a piece of code means you have to understand it in the
first place, so correcting the problem retroactively can be tough. FWIW,
our team puts most of our code through peer review, which helps a lot up
front.
===========================
Chris Recoskie
Team Lead, IBM CDT Team
IBM Toronto
http://www.eclipse.org/cdt
"Andras Varga"
<andras@omnetpp.o
rg> To
Sent by: "'CDT General developers list.'"
cdt-dev-bounces@e <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
clipse.org cc
Subject
02/15/2008 06:20 RE: [cdt-dev] typos and missing
AM documentation in the CDT source
code
Please respond to
"CDT General
developers list."
<cdt-dev@eclipse.
org>
Hi all,
It is nice to hear that typos in the API will be fixed.
However, the question of missing Javadocs generated no replies at all. Do
CDT developers feel comfortable with having to figure out the functionality
and the intent behind a class or method from the [often messy] source code
every time? OTOH if someone adds a new method or class, how long would it
take to add a 3-line Javadoc to write down what it does...? Five minutes?
Ten??
Andras
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Schaefer, Doug
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 5:36 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] typos and missing documentation in the CDT source
> code
>
> See bug: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=210116
>
> Doug
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Andras Varga
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 5:55 AM
> To: 'CDT General developers list.'
> Subject: [cdt-dev] typos and missing documentation in the CDT source
> code
>
> Hi all,
>
> Some questions about the state of the CDT source code.
>
> There are several typos in class names and method names:
> EnvirinmentVariable, BuildSustem, etc. I believe they're collected in
> bug # 210116. Are they going to be fixed for 5.0, or are they going to
> stay in the name of backwards compatibility? They look kinda dodgy.
>
> Second: most classes in CDT are almost totally undocumented. No Javadoc
> comments, or any kind of useful comments at all. I can't believe this is
> not a problem even for CDT contributors themselves. This was raised as
> bug #214324, then closed out of frustration. Any comments on this?
>
> Best regards,
> Andras
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
