From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1ff5003422436e4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-11 17:45:32 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Easily-Read C++?
Date: 11 Oct 1994 14:43:31 -0400
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <37emcj$sk5@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <941005030023_73672.2025_DHR103-1@CompuServe.COM>
   <Cx7o3H.3pp@uunet!aadt> <36v7p4$amf@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
   <36v90m$9r4@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> <124377@cup.portal.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1994-10-11T14:43:31-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

There are to my mind three justifications for comments:

Saying WHY you are doing something, and WHY you did it that way

Saying WHY you did NOT do something, and WHY you did NOT

Describing WHAT the code does, but at a higher level of abstraction
than the code itself.