On 14/01/2016 14:29, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 14 January 2016 at 13:16, Julien Rouhaud <julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com> wrote:
>> You're absolutely right, but in this case the comment is more like a
>> reminder of a bigger comment few lines before that wasn't quoted in my mail
>
> Fair enough, although I have two niggles with that:
>
> a) the second comment could become physically separated from the first
> by later additions of extra code, or by refactoring;
> b) if you don't need the comment because the explanation for it is
> local anyway and the comment tells you nothing that the code doesn't,
> why have it at all?
>
I agree. If I had to choose, I'd vote for removing it.
>> so I assume it's ok to keep it this way.
>
> Of course it's ok to do whatever you decide is best: as I said
> previously, I fully appreciate that I have no ownership over any of
> the code.
>
Neither do I, I'm just reviewer here just as you :)
--
Julien Rouhaud
http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org
