4 ms·

> If it was named TIMESTAMP_ROUND, I wouldn't need to know "Round off to MAX_TIMESTAMP_PRECISION decimal places." With only the name, how would you know how ma

• dwild 7y ago
  > With only the name, how would you know how many decimal places I'm not saying the name is wrong because of the comment, I'm saying it's wrong because of the usage of the acronym. > The comment isn't wrong/out of date here btw. Isn't wrong? How? It's true in the sense that they expect TS_PREC_INV to be related to MAX_TIMESTAMP_PRECISION (which would be a perfect example to my mind of a needed comment, if actually it was a requirement), but it's actually false in the sense that it's not what that code does. You wouldn't get a different rounding if you were to modify MAX_TIMESTAMP_PRECISION, which is what you would expect based on that comment.
  • tln 7y ago
    > I'm not saying the name is wrong because of the comment, I'm saying it's wrong because of the usage of the acronym. I get that. But you also said the comment would be unnecessary with a name change. The comment does communicate more information than your proposed name, IMO, hence is not replaceable by the name. (IMO). > You wouldn't get a different rounding if you were to modify MAX_TIMESTAMP_PRECISION, which is what you would expect based on that comment. Good point. The comment isn't wrong with the definition of MAX_TIMESTAMP_PRECISION as it is in the code. If you override it though, the code doesn't do what the comment says. It's an interesting case: if you trust the comment indicates the desired behavior, then you can see the code may have room to be improved. If you distrust that the comment is correct or has value, then you might just remove the comment, and the code doesn't get better.