[Scummvm-devel] Re: opcode comments (Was: CVS: scummvm/scumm script_v2.cpp,2.211,2.2Re: CVS: scummvm/scumm script v2.cpp,2.211,2.212 script _v5.cpp,1.206,1.207

[Max Horn]

Am Montag, 10.11.03 um 12:27 Uhr schrieb Pawel Kolodziejski:

>>
>> Am Montag, 10.11.03 um 10:16 Uhr schrieb Pawel Kolodziejski:
>>
>>> Update of /cvsroot/scummvm/scummvm/scumm
>>> In directory sc8-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv5808
>>>
>>> Modified Files:
>>> 	script_v2.cpp script_v5.cpp
>>> Log Message:
>>> added subopcode comments
>>>
>> What do you mean, "added subopcode comments" ? You replaced clear
>> english comments by cryptic ones. Who ever said that we have to use
>> these "SO_FOO" constants ? They are nothing "official" in any way. So
>> where is the point?
>
> Some comments are before diffrent named between script versions, now is
> more clear what is subcode. Better solution is replace constants value 
> by
> names opcodes.

I disagree. These values change between different script versions. If 
we start to making enums for them for each script version, what do we 
gain? Seems pointless to me, added work with no return benefit.
And in any case, those SO_FOO names are not "canonical" in any way, so 
why should we use those? How did you make them up, anyway? Do you have 
access to Scumm source and are copying them from there??? I hope not, 
because that would seriously put us in legal troubles (but of course 
you wouldn't so incredibly stupid to use names from illegally obtained 
source code in ScummVM. Would you...?)



> Source code is not good place for comments about what code
> do (except hacks, something completly not clear).

And I always thought comments are *exactly* meant to explain what code 
does / what its purpose is... :-)



>  For this are docs
> outside of source or at least outside func definition.