From: Eivind Eklund <eeklund@...>
Date: 2004-10-16T00:03:06+09:00
Subject: Re: documentation as source

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:17:42 +0900, Nathaniel Talbott
<nathaniel@talbott.ws> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2004, at 23:42, trans. (T. Onoma) wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday 13 October 2004 09:19 pm, Nathaniel Talbott wrote:
> > | Well, the current plan is to let you to do something like this:
> > |
> > |    class Adder
> > |      include Testing
> > |
> > |      # Adds two numbers
> > |      example { assert_equal(2, Adder.new.add(1, 1)) }
> > |      def add(a, b)
> > |        a + b
> > |      end
> > |    end
[...]
> >   2. Detracts from the code itself.
> 
> Why?

I'll take this one.

For me:
* My brain is conditioned to automatically "ignore" lines that start
with # - they're there as documentation, but they are very clearly
separate from code
* They're automatically highlighted "away" in my editor.

So far, I prefer Florian's approach - however, it may be this works
out OK in a highlighting editor (because def gets highlighted).  In
black and white, Florian's is much easier to read, and less overhead,
though.

Eivind.
-- 
Hazzle free packages for Ruby?
RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/