This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: "Documentation by paper"
- From: Andrew Sutton <asutton at cs dot kent dot edu>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>, Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 01:24:31 -0500
- Subject: Re: "Documentation by paper"
- Organization: Kent State University
- References: <200401271912.i0RJCN2J018928@speedy.slc.redhat.com> <401C3F16.3040706@gnat.com>
> There is a *big* difference between looking at interface comments in
> a header and looking at the implementation!
isn't that the _point_ of an interface? i sure as hell don't look at the libc
implementations of posix methods to figure out what the parameters do.
sorry to keep extending this thread... it's late and i have some strong
feelings about the topic - especially since my masters thesis revolves around
the topics of program understanding, redocumentation and reverse engineering
(not reverse engineering like decss). maybe it's me, but it seems a bit odd
that people would argue against documentation extraction in favor of having
developers look at the implementation as a reference. but then again, i'm
only a software engin... i mean grad student.
andrew sutton
asutton@cs.kent.edu