On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:28:39 +1100 "NeilBrown" <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > When writing documentation the intent of the author is of some interest, > > but the behaviour of the code is paramount. > > uh, er, ah, no. The code describes the behaviour of the code. The > comments are there to describe things other than the code's behaviour. > Things such as the author's intent. > > Any deviation between the author's intent and the code's behaviour is > called a "bug", so it's pretty important to understand authorial > intent, no? When the author is writing the documentation - then yes - definitely. When the "author" is several different people over a period of years, then it is not even certain that there is a single unified "intent". The author's intent is less interesting not so much because it is less relevant, but because it is less available. So when writing third-party post-hoc documentation, the focus has to be on the code, though with reference to the intent to whatever extent it is available. Bugs then show up where the actual behaviour turns out to be impossible to document coherently. Thanks, NeilBrown
