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?
> 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.
Geoff