In the AppleII world, I got to play that "What Assembler (and OS) is it?" game... but on the whole, decent listings included this information, or it was a dead giveaway (ie, a big fat "MLI = $BF00 ;ProDOS MLI entry" is a good indicator that this program isn't for DOS 3.3...)

A recent peeve of mine has been not just what comments say, but what one names the variables. This, IMHO, is just as important as meaningful comments -- perhaps even more so. Check this out:

# handle CTCP {LOOK,OGLE}
sub _lookpm {
    my $boo=shift(@_);
    my @x=split(/ /,$boo);
    my $y=(split('!',$x[0],2))[0];
    my $z=IRC::get_info(3);
    my $man=IRC::get_info(1);
    my $booya=$x[2];
. . .
[download]

Even though this snippet is my own that I just altered extremely to provide example, when I saw very similar code in another script when I was just starting out in perl, it proved that variable names -do- matter, and -do- provide insight into the program's workings. It doesn't have to be ugly, tho:

# handle CTCP {LOOK,OGLE}
sub _lookpm {
    my $line=shift(@_);
    my @pargv=split(/ /,$line);
    my $who=(split('!',$pargv[0],2))[0];
    my $serv=IRC::get_info(3);
    my $nick=IRC::get_info(1);
    my $context=$pargv[2];
. . .
[download]

. . . and it's still debatable as to the usage of some of these vars. I'll have to work on cleaning it up. :o)

Which would you rather have the pleasure of trying to understand?

--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.