desperately in need of a tool

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

yagyala a écrit :
> Hi.
> 
> I recently started working for a company that has just implemented its
> first set of software standards. So far, so good. Here's the problem:
> one of those standards is that the comments for each routine must
> indicate every other routine that it calls.

May I suggest that this is a totally *stupid* (and FWIW, totally 
impossible to apply) "standard" ?

Consider the following code, which is  totally dumb but quite close to 
real-life code in it's design (use of polymorphic dispatch, HOFs and 
anonymous functions...) :

def some_func(obj, callback):
   return callback(obj.method())

class One(object):
   def method(self):
     return 42

class Two(object):
   def __init__(self, val):
     self.val = val
   def method(self):
     return self.val / 3


def cb_one(val):
   return val + 2

def cb_two(val):
   return val * 3 + 42


arg_pairs = [(One(), cb_one),
              (One(), cb_two),
              (Two(33), cb_one),
              (Two(99), cb_two)
              (One(), lambda x: x ** 2]

for obj, cb in arg_pairs:
   print some_func(obj, cb)

How are you going to list the functions called by some_func ???

(snip)

> I'm sure some will wonder about the reasoning of this standard.

Indeed !-)

> The
> company primarily has experience writing scientific alogorythms which
> can get rather long. It makes a bit more sense to document all
> routines called for a very long routine, but for short routines that
> primarily call other routines, as most mine do, well....

Show the above code to your PHB and ask him to explain how you're going 
to apply the "standard"...