"Micah Elliott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [CCed] wrote in message [news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The nice thing about this is that I can use whatever part (or whatever version) I want regardless of whether it becomes a standard library style recommendation. I would prefer tags that are short and pronouncable. I think I would generally give preference to verbs over nouns when the tag means 'act'. I think the tools should be able to handle local additions to the list since there will never be universal agreement to a reasonable size list. > ``TODO (MILESTONE, MLSTN, DONE, YAGNI, TBD, TOBEDONE)`` > *To do*: Informal tasks/features that are pending completion. Some of the 'synonyms' don't look like synonyms to me. I prefer the shorter verb DO. The TO adds nothing. For a particular project with lots of optional additions, I may use the more specific ADD. DO could mean to do literally anything. > ``FIXME (XXX, DEBUG, BROKEN, REFACTOR, REFACT, RFCTR, OOPS, SMELL, > NEEDSWORK, INSPECT)`` > *Fix me*: Areas of problematic or ugly code needing refactoring or > cleanup. FIX is shorter and more competitive with XXX. In context, the addition of ME is meaningless. Leave it off. (Or write tools that let me ;-). FIX corresponds to NOFIX and variants. What is missing is a convention as to whether the code to be fixed (the ME) is above or below the note. > ``GLOSS (GLOSSARY)`` > *Glossary*: Definitions for project glossary. DEF for define or definition (for glossary) > ``TODOC (DOCDO, DODOC, NEEDSDOC, EXPLAIN, DOCUMENT)`` > *Needs Documentation*: Areas of code that still need to be > documented. DOC for document this. TO or DO add no meaning. > DONE File > --------- > It may sound burdensome to have to delete codetag lines every time one > gets completed. But in practice it is quite easy to setup a Vim or > Emacs mapping to auto-record a codetag deletion in this format (sans > the commentary). Not everyone uses Vim or Emacs. Would it be as easy to setup IDLE or PythonWin to do the same? Suggestion: add an x:comment field, to mean 'this tag is ready to be deleted, perhaps to be transferred to a done file first'. ----- I generally agree with your objection defenses except possible this one. > :Objection: I can't use codetags when writing HTML, or less > specifically, XML. Maybe [EMAIL PROTECTED]@`` would be a better than > ``<fields>`` as the delimiters. > > :Defense: Maybe you're right, but ``<>`` looks nicer whenever > applicable. XML/SGML could use [EMAIL PROTECTED] while more common > programming languages stick to ``<>``. XML is not going change. On the other hand, < and > routinely occur in Python code already. Don't they already have to be escaped to embed Python in HT/XML? Terry J. Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
