Over-documentation
-
The first time I saw something like that said "Paris in the / the spring". I saw this[^] sign a couple of weeks ago at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_Rocks_(Arizona)[^]
-
This is from another forum I visit once in a while, somebody posting a code snippet:
void loop(){
byte rxbyte; //this tells the 'compiler' to allocate some memory for a variable called rxbyte
byte temp; //this tells the 'compiler' to allocate some memory for a variable called temp
rxbyte = serial_getch(); //this calls the 'function' serial_getch(), stores result in rxbyteif (rxbyte == 254) //Matrix uses 254 for commands, if rxbyte = 254 the the code below runs
{
switch (serial_getch()) //calls serial_getch() to get the next byte from the PC
// 'switches' based on that byte
{And it continues on like that. At least we know what the 'compiler' is doing when you declare a variable :)
Amusingly, that doesn't really tell us much - the compiler doesn't "allocate" memory, the stack is allocated when the program starts - this simply updates stack pointers.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
-
This is from another forum I visit once in a while, somebody posting a code snippet:
void loop(){
byte rxbyte; //this tells the 'compiler' to allocate some memory for a variable called rxbyte
byte temp; //this tells the 'compiler' to allocate some memory for a variable called temp
rxbyte = serial_getch(); //this calls the 'function' serial_getch(), stores result in rxbyteif (rxbyte == 254) //Matrix uses 254 for commands, if rxbyte = 254 the the code below runs
{
switch (serial_getch()) //calls serial_getch() to get the next byte from the PC
// 'switches' based on that byte
{And it continues on like that. At least we know what the 'compiler' is doing when you declare a variable :)
Over-zealous on the documentation part but missed out some basic coding standards like below: 1) Magic Strings/Numbers in code. 2) It would be better to have the value of serial_getch() assigned in a variable and then used in switch instead of calling it directly as a function in the switch construct.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage You can not step into the same river twice.
-
This is from another forum I visit once in a while, somebody posting a code snippet:
void loop(){
byte rxbyte; //this tells the 'compiler' to allocate some memory for a variable called rxbyte
byte temp; //this tells the 'compiler' to allocate some memory for a variable called temp
rxbyte = serial_getch(); //this calls the 'function' serial_getch(), stores result in rxbyteif (rxbyte == 254) //Matrix uses 254 for commands, if rxbyte = 254 the the code below runs
{
switch (serial_getch()) //calls serial_getch() to get the next byte from the PC
// 'switches' based on that byte
{And it continues on like that. At least we know what the 'compiler' is doing when you declare a variable :)
Probably he had a boss who complained about insufficient comments - like my boss often does when reviewing my code complains about missing annotations (just review annotations, the code was already commented properly). So I did more or less the same like our guy here - and my boss was happy. He didn't get that it was supposed to be ironic...
-
This is from another forum I visit once in a while, somebody posting a code snippet:
void loop(){
byte rxbyte; //this tells the 'compiler' to allocate some memory for a variable called rxbyte
byte temp; //this tells the 'compiler' to allocate some memory for a variable called temp
rxbyte = serial_getch(); //this calls the 'function' serial_getch(), stores result in rxbyteif (rxbyte == 254) //Matrix uses 254 for commands, if rxbyte = 254 the the code below runs
{
switch (serial_getch()) //calls serial_getch() to get the next byte from the PC
// 'switches' based on that byte
{And it continues on like that. At least we know what the 'compiler' is doing when you declare a variable :)
No horror here if it was posted to someone who's not into programming. E.g. "==" operator is not obvious and may provoke questions what does it mean. Also, telling about "allocating" memory is more understandable that introducing to how stack and pointers work.
Greetings - Jacek
