I've been thinking about those comments overnight, and I don't have any particular objection to them. Certainly not the second one anyway. I think that one could easily fall under the auspices of my statement from the OP

Cool. It could eaisly be that I've gotten an exaggerated impression of how sparse you think comments need to be -- and by the way, I agree that it's certainly possible to have a surplus of comments that just become inane (most would agree that every line is too many, for example). Unlike what some people here are saying, though, I find that problem to be tremendously rare. Far more common is the "it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand" attitude.

That said, context is everything, and your snippet in isolation of the code (and further commenting) around it, makes it hard to decide if these are really warrented or not.

I think we're wandering afield, but the context is, of course, href-based objects, in this case using a seperation of instantiation from initialization. I'm playing with a simple "new" routine (inherited from Class::Base) which calls an "init" sub. I've used a version of init (generated by template) that looks something like this: 

sub init {
  my $self = shift;
  my $args = shift;
  unlock_keys( %{ $self } );

  # $self->SUPER::init( $args );  # uncomment if this is a child class

  # define new attributes
  my $attributes = {
           ### fill-in name/value pairs of attributes here
           # name            => $args->{ name },
             attribute       => $args->{ attribute },
             objectdata      => $args->{ objectdata } || 23,
             parameter       => $args->{ parameter } || 'bupkes',
           };

  # add attributes to object
  my @fields = (keys %{ $attributes });
  @{ $self }{ @fields } = @{ $attributes }{ @fields };    # hash slice

  lock_keys( %{ $self } );
  return $self;
}

[download]

Note: some of the comments there are intended to be deleted as the code goes from template form toward production use.

In general, the reason I think we're wandering afield is that I make no claims that these constructs are the best way of doing things. The question at hand is that if you are going to do something like this (e.g. use a mildly obscure feature such as a hash slice) is there something heinous about labeling it as such in a comment.

In reply to Re^7: Programming *is* much more than "just writing code". by doom
in thread Programming *is* much more than "just writing code". by BrowserUk

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.