> So why do you want to exclude comments?  They are a important part of code,
> and changes in comments are just as important as changes in the executable
> code.

If you saw this code, you'd know why.  I'll rant for a moment, because
I (think I)
have a sympathetic audience.

1.  No compiler/simulator: this code is in plaintext, which is uploaded through
a terminal program to the motion controller that it drives.  No error reporting,
no syntax check, nothing.  At best, a four digit error code with no line ref or
context.  By ignoring the comments, it makes it easier for me to pick out the
actual code and spot errors.
2.  Fully 15% of the code is commented code, removed by previous developers
from previous versions.  I don't want to see that.
3.  Frequently, when I'm going through the code adding a feature, I'll tidy up
the comments.  Most of them are pointless (i.e., "increment Y by 6", "sets
Io 23 to 1", etc) or flat wrong, referring to functionality that's
gone or altered
so significantly it no longer resembles the described behavior.  I don't want
to be told a line of code has changed just because I've deleted and re-written
the entire comment for that line, and added two or three lines of comments
to boot.

Maintaining this code is an absolute nightmare.  We have three types of
code, for three different machine configuration scenarios, and all three types
have to be manually altered separately to add new features or fix new bugs.

I've gone through the most common one and cleaned it up, adding
comments and removing dead or commented code, but the fact is we're
at 8100 bytes of 8150 (yes, 8150.  NOT 8192.), so we may be reaching
the end of the road for this thing.

Sorry.  Rant off.

Mike H.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist