Re: State of the new config & build system

Linus Torvalds
2001-12-28T23:13:08Z

On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> It would certainly fit nicely with the existing metadata. We already rip out
> code comments via kernel-doc, and extending it to rip out
>
> - Help text
> - Web site
...

No no no.

The comments can at least be helpful to programmers, whether ripped out or
not.

Extra stuff is not helpful to anybody, and is just really irritating. I
personally despise source trees that start out with one page of copyright
statement crap, it just detracts from the real _point_ of the .c file,
which is to contain C code. Making it a comment requirement is

- stupid:
we have a filesystem, guys

- slow:
we don't need to parse every C file we encounter when we can just
open another file based on filename

- nonsensical:
many config options are _not_ limited to one C file

- hard to parse and read:
why limit ourself to C comments, when just keeping the thing
logically separated means that we don't have to.

Having per-function comment blocks, in contrast, makes sense to have
inline:

- you read the comment when you read the function

- you might even update the comment when you update the function

- you have a reasonable 1:1 relationship.

_None_ of those are sensible for config file entries.

Linus