Docstrings considered too complicated

[Jean-Michel Pichavant]

Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:18:30 +1100 Lie Ryan <lie.1296 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> On 03/02/10 00:09, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 05:01:49 -0800 (PST) alex23 <wuwei23 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Andreas Waldenburger <use... at geekmail.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> But as I said: a) I am (we are) not in a position to impose this
>>>>> (We don't work with the code, we just run the software).
>>>>>           
>>>> I personally believe that the end users have _every_ right to
>>>> impose quality requirements on  code used within their
>>>> business...although I may not bring this up in front of them at
>>>> meetings :)
>>>>         
>>> Huh? That's like demanding a certain type of truck or vehicle
>>> maintenance plan from a trucking company. Sure, you *could* do it,
>>> but that effectively only limits your options. I think there should
>>> be a clear separation of concerns here.
>>>       
>> If my truck contains food items that spoils quickly, I would want to
>> make sure that the trucking company takes good care of their
>> refrigeration system and that the truck have as little chance as
>> possible for breakdown due to poor maintenance.
>>     
>
> My point was that it should not be any of your concern *how* they do
> it, only *that* they do it.
>
> Back in the software world: Those guys write code that works. It does
> what it's supposed to do. Why should we care where they put their
> comments?
>
>   
If you've bought the code and want to maintain it, you'd better make 
sure it's possible.
By the way, the ISO 9001 standard ask for your out sourced processing to 
be compliant with your QA objectives, so if you care about your code, 
then you should care for the code you buy.

JM