On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:40:34PM +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote: > Am 10.02.2017 um 12:05 schrieb Yuri Chornoivan: > > - /* Reformat string string to avoid doing it multiple times later. */ > > + /* Reformat string to avoid doing it multiple times later. */ > > Actually I don't think this is a word repetition. It looks to me like > it's really talking about "string string" - the string held in the > variable named "string". That sounds like a valid interpretation, but the new version reads better. > > - * If anything goes wrong (and many things can), we return return code 10 > > + * If anything goes wrong (and many things can), we return code 10 > > Nor is this, as it talks about the return code that will be returned. Good point here. The original version works, but is more verbose than it needs to be. "we return code 10" is a valid way to describe the return value, but just "we return 10" is simpler and unambiguous. I don't think the comment needs to explicitly call it a code. -- #define X(x,y) x##y Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cor , des.ca) "The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours! Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack my day so wretchedly into small pieces!" -- Plautus, 200 BC
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
