this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
48 points (96.2% liked)

Programming

17483 readers
190 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
snowe
Ategon
[email protected]
48
No more code headers? (midwest.social)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/programming
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I recently hired into a data analytics team for a hospital, and we don't have a style guide. Lots of frustration from folks working with legacy code...I thought putting together a style guide would help folks working with code they didn't write, starting with requiring a header for SQL scripts first as low hanging fruit.

Or so I thought.

My counterpart over application development says that we shouldnt be documenting any metadata in-line, and he'd rather implement "docfx" if we want to improve code metadata and documentation. I'm terrified of half-implementing yet another application to further muddy the waters--i'm concerned it will become just one-more place to look while troubleshooting something.

Am I going crazy? I thought code headers were an industry standard, and in-line comments are regarded as practically necessary when working with a larger team...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I encourage you to find a name for this function that describes why there is a second inner function. One restriction - the name of the function must be run (that's what the trait being implemented calls it, you can't rename it).

Sure, you can call the inner function run_inner_to_fix_rustc_issue_probably_caused_by_multiple_fnmut_impls but is that really any better than using two forward slashes to explain the context?