Is “remove commented out code” correct English?Is “wait up!” considered correct English?“Toys out of the pram” expressionIs “very less” correct English?“Snapping out” vs “snapping out of it.”Why does “don't have a cow” mean “chill out” or “calm down” in American English?Is it correct to say “Getting out of schedule” or “Going out of schedule”Is “you best should run” correct English?Is 'waived it through' correct English?Phrase which means to “code in” a programming language“Out of respect” versus other “out of”

Test whether all array elements are factors of a number

Problem of parity - Can we draw a closed path made up of 20 line segments...

Has the BBC provided arguments for saying Brexit being cancelled is unlikely?

The use of multiple foreign keys on same column in SQL Server

What's the output of a record cartridge playing an out-of-speed record

Is it legal for company to use my work email to pretend I still work there?

What's the point of deactivating Num Lock on login screens?

Why "Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous" and "like living with a bomb"?

How to write a macro that is braces sensitive?

Why Is Death Allowed In the Matrix?

Test if tikzmark exists on same page

How to format long polynomial?

Finding angle with pure Geometry.

Do VLANs within a subnet need to have their own subnet for router on a stick?

Why are 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there are 300k+ births a month?

Smoothness of finite-dimensional functional calculus

What are the differences between the usage of 'it' and 'they'?

TGV timetables / schedules?

Why did Neo believe he could trust the machine when he asked for peace?

How could an uplifted falcon's brain work?

Collect Fourier series terms

Mage Armor with Defense fighting style (for Adventurers League bladeslinger)

Why do falling prices hurt debtors?

Is a tag line useful on a cover?



Is “remove commented out code” correct English?


Is “wait up!” considered correct English?“Toys out of the pram” expressionIs “very less” correct English?“Snapping out” vs “snapping out of it.”Why does “don't have a cow” mean “chill out” or “calm down” in American English?Is it correct to say “Getting out of schedule” or “Going out of schedule”Is “you best should run” correct English?Is 'waived it through' correct English?Phrase which means to “code in” a programming language“Out of respect” versus other “out of”






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








15















As a programmer, I often use the term "Remove commented out code" as a commit message when checking in code. I wonder whether this is correct English.



To use an example outside the realm of programming, consider these two phrases for contrast:



"Help the poor people"



"Help the left behind people"



The first seems reasonable, while the second sounds clunky. Is it grammatically correct? I assume it could be said better.



What about my initial example? Is there a better way to phrase it or is it ok?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Cerno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Andrew Leach
    yesterday











  • In a commit message, you are defining the actions you took in that commit. Defining an action that has been completed, is done using the past tense. So "Remove" should be "Removed".

    – Dylan
    yesterday











  • A simple hyphen would make "commented-out" a compound adjective - and then it's fine.

    – TrevorD
    yesterday

















15















As a programmer, I often use the term "Remove commented out code" as a commit message when checking in code. I wonder whether this is correct English.



To use an example outside the realm of programming, consider these two phrases for contrast:



"Help the poor people"



"Help the left behind people"



The first seems reasonable, while the second sounds clunky. Is it grammatically correct? I assume it could be said better.



What about my initial example? Is there a better way to phrase it or is it ok?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Cerno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Andrew Leach
    yesterday











  • In a commit message, you are defining the actions you took in that commit. Defining an action that has been completed, is done using the past tense. So "Remove" should be "Removed".

    – Dylan
    yesterday











  • A simple hyphen would make "commented-out" a compound adjective - and then it's fine.

    – TrevorD
    yesterday













15












15








15


2






As a programmer, I often use the term "Remove commented out code" as a commit message when checking in code. I wonder whether this is correct English.



To use an example outside the realm of programming, consider these two phrases for contrast:



"Help the poor people"



"Help the left behind people"



The first seems reasonable, while the second sounds clunky. Is it grammatically correct? I assume it could be said better.



What about my initial example? Is there a better way to phrase it or is it ok?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Cerno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












As a programmer, I often use the term "Remove commented out code" as a commit message when checking in code. I wonder whether this is correct English.



To use an example outside the realm of programming, consider these two phrases for contrast:



"Help the poor people"



"Help the left behind people"



The first seems reasonable, while the second sounds clunky. Is it grammatically correct? I assume it could be said better.



What about my initial example? Is there a better way to phrase it or is it ok?







expressions






share|improve this question







New contributor




Cerno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Cerno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Cerno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Apr 3 at 14:09









CernoCerno

18316




18316




New contributor




Cerno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Cerno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Cerno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Andrew Leach
    yesterday











  • In a commit message, you are defining the actions you took in that commit. Defining an action that has been completed, is done using the past tense. So "Remove" should be "Removed".

    – Dylan
    yesterday











  • A simple hyphen would make "commented-out" a compound adjective - and then it's fine.

    – TrevorD
    yesterday

















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Andrew Leach
    yesterday











  • In a commit message, you are defining the actions you took in that commit. Defining an action that has been completed, is done using the past tense. So "Remove" should be "Removed".

    – Dylan
    yesterday











  • A simple hyphen would make "commented-out" a compound adjective - and then it's fine.

    – TrevorD
    yesterday
















Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– Andrew Leach
yesterday





Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– Andrew Leach
yesterday













In a commit message, you are defining the actions you took in that commit. Defining an action that has been completed, is done using the past tense. So "Remove" should be "Removed".

– Dylan
yesterday





In a commit message, you are defining the actions you took in that commit. Defining an action that has been completed, is done using the past tense. So "Remove" should be "Removed".

– Dylan
yesterday













A simple hyphen would make "commented-out" a compound adjective - and then it's fine.

– TrevorD
yesterday





A simple hyphen would make "commented-out" a compound adjective - and then it's fine.

– TrevorD
yesterday










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















42














There is a better way to phrase it, but it's also OK. That is to say, in contexts other than a commit message, you would probably want to rewrite the sentence, but for an internal note, it's fine.



The main issue with the sentence is that you're using commented out as a compound adjective and so you should probably hyphenate the phrase: "Remove the commented-out code." Hyphenation would also improve your last example sentence: "Help the left-behind people" is better, but "Help the people who were left behind" is better still.



If I were trying to express the idea of your commit message in a more formal context, a context where prose style is important, or really any context without a strict and low character limit, I would write, "Remove the code which was commented out."






share|improve this answer


















  • 87





    Your answer is grammatically correct, but it misses an important fact: "commented-out code" is idiomatic in the relevant domain of expertise. The phrase is widely used and well understood by programmers. I would not have a problem using it even in a formal context. Because "commented-out code" is idiomatic, "code which was commented out" is unnecessarily wordy and may intone smugness.

    – jpmc26
    Apr 3 at 18:40







  • 14





    @Juhasz "User login" is a synonym for "account," not a user in the logged in state. The idiomatic short phrase for "users who are logged in" would be "authenticated users." "Logged-in users" would be recognizable but not idiomatic. More relevant to this question, "users who are authenticated" would certainly sound strange in most contexts. I'm not sure what the rest has to do with reformulating the phrase into "the code which was commented out."

    – jpmc26
    Apr 3 at 19:30







  • 14





    Maybe it's just me, but for programming specifically, I'll agree and say "Remove the commented-out code" is better for a commit message. If the commit message was "Remove the code which was commented out" it leads me to sit and think, did mean that you removed code (for all practical purposes) by commenting it out? Or was there code, commented out, and was removed?

    – BruceWayne
    Apr 3 at 20:50







  • 8





    @jpmc26 Ack, be careful about universalizing your own dialect. Your criticisms are all correct, but "user login" is an event (a "user account" is just that), "logged-in users" is perfectly idiomatic (authentication can be performed in other ways, such as with OAuth), and using an adjective like "authenticated" in an adjective clause has more to do with the train of thought of the speaker than style.

    – chrylis
    Apr 3 at 21:25






  • 5





    Commit messages and idiomatic jargon are pretty far away from formal writing, there's no conflict here. Use "commented-out code" in your commits, tweets, and emails, use more formal language in your presentation to the Queen of Sweden.

    – barbecue
    Apr 3 at 21:43


















27














Commit summaries (the single first line of a commit, and often the entire message) are a defined genre of technical speech because they have a specific role of identifying changes in a big list of changes and are limited to a certain number of characters. In particular, they are usually written in imperative ("Remove" vs. "Removed") and in headlinese for the same goal of fitting information into a limited space. Thus these are all considered helpful commit summaries:




  • Remove commented-out code

  • Refactor foo service

  • Add new SMS implementation for Bar Mobile



As noted elsewhere, "commented-out" should be hyphenated as it's a phrasal adjective; otherwise, the way you're phrasing it is stylistically preferred for this specific context.






share|improve this answer




















  • 4





    @CJDennis It's not really harmful to do that, but it's more important to keep to 72 characters than to add lubricant.

    – chrylis
    Apr 3 at 23:53






  • 2





    Who says that in the 21st century it's important to not go above 72 characters? My commit messages sometimes have single lines longer than 72 characters, and a total count of thousands of characters without issues.

    – CJ Dennis
    Apr 4 at 0:06






  • 7





    @CJDennis It's fine on commit messages; I sometimes write multiple paragraphs. The commit summary, on the other hand, is processed by tons of tooling, and GitHub, for example, will truncate it.

    – chrylis
    Apr 4 at 0:35






  • 1





    From what I've seen, GitHub doesn't truncate it (i.e. only store the first 72 characters), but in certain limited views it will show the first 72 characters as a preview. The full text is visible in a different view. My advice is that if you need more than 72 characters, use them! A 100 character commit summary (without irrelevancies) is unlikely to go under 72 characters by changing it to "headlinese".

    – CJ Dennis
    2 days ago






  • 6





    @CJDennis you can use as many characters as you want in a message but 72 is the standard for headings which is the first line. I don't want to go back and forth between views to know what the summary of the message is - FEAT1234: Making changes to the authentication procedure to allow for Single Sign-On users is too long and it will cut of at allow for S. OK, I made this a bit too word-y but the idea is that a descriptive doesn't really fit. A message of "Change authentication for SSO users" is enough as a heading - write an essay as the message, if you want.

    – VLAZ
    2 days ago


















-7














Just to add the pedantic view, 'out' is essentially redundant.



'Remove commented code' works, or to more accurately explain the commit 'Remove obsolete code' is probably better.



Having said that, 'commented out' is pretty much an industry term. If you wish to keep the 'out' (to differentiate from regular language comments that assist future readers, as opposed to comments that hide code from the compiler, I suppose), I see no need to hyphenate the term. It is common enough (especially among your target audience: commit log readers) to be immediately recognised and doesn't create ambiguity when left un-hyphenated.






share|improve this answer


















  • 15





    'commented out' is pretty much an industry term — Right. And unfortunately for your first paragraph, so is 'commented code'! Commented code (especially well commented code) is a pro, not a con. "Gallant's code is commented. Goofus's code is commented out." (So "Remove commented code" would be less technically correct, but of course a human reader would supply the missing "out" from context.)

    – Quuxplusone
    2 days ago






  • 27





    Most people I know would consider "commented code" to refer to code that has comments in it, and "commented-out code" to refer to code that is put between comment markings in order to make the compiler/interpreter ignore it. They are not synonyms in the common usage that I know, so the "out" is not redundant. In fact, "comment out" is a phrasal verb modelled on "cross out", "scratch out", and "rub out", all of which have quite distinct meanings if "out" is omitted.

    – Robert Furber
    2 days ago






  • 16





    I agree with the other commenters. To me "commented-out code" has a very different meaning from "commented code". The latter meaning code that includes comments, the former being code that has become a comment and is now obsolete. They are not synonymous.

    – user2705196
    2 days ago






  • 3





    I agree, so this answer is wrong: "commented code" and "commented-out code" are different things. What is more, "obsolete code" is different yet again: it usually won't have been commented out.

    – reinierpost
    2 days ago






  • 2





    @mcalex "After going through identifiers, key words, strings etc, I said all the dark green stuff was simply commented code ..." this is actually, technically, just wrong, and maybe the source of your confusion re: the responses here. The "green stuff" itself is not "commented code". It is code comments, commonly referred to within domain as simply "comments". It may CONTAIN code that has been "commented out" (meaning: rendered into being a comment). Code that has comments ON IT (usually to the right, or above/below) is "commented code"... to be actually pedantic.

    – taswyn
    2 days ago










protected by Andrew Leach Apr 3 at 21:45



Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









42














There is a better way to phrase it, but it's also OK. That is to say, in contexts other than a commit message, you would probably want to rewrite the sentence, but for an internal note, it's fine.



The main issue with the sentence is that you're using commented out as a compound adjective and so you should probably hyphenate the phrase: "Remove the commented-out code." Hyphenation would also improve your last example sentence: "Help the left-behind people" is better, but "Help the people who were left behind" is better still.



If I were trying to express the idea of your commit message in a more formal context, a context where prose style is important, or really any context without a strict and low character limit, I would write, "Remove the code which was commented out."






share|improve this answer


















  • 87





    Your answer is grammatically correct, but it misses an important fact: "commented-out code" is idiomatic in the relevant domain of expertise. The phrase is widely used and well understood by programmers. I would not have a problem using it even in a formal context. Because "commented-out code" is idiomatic, "code which was commented out" is unnecessarily wordy and may intone smugness.

    – jpmc26
    Apr 3 at 18:40







  • 14





    @Juhasz "User login" is a synonym for "account," not a user in the logged in state. The idiomatic short phrase for "users who are logged in" would be "authenticated users." "Logged-in users" would be recognizable but not idiomatic. More relevant to this question, "users who are authenticated" would certainly sound strange in most contexts. I'm not sure what the rest has to do with reformulating the phrase into "the code which was commented out."

    – jpmc26
    Apr 3 at 19:30







  • 14





    Maybe it's just me, but for programming specifically, I'll agree and say "Remove the commented-out code" is better for a commit message. If the commit message was "Remove the code which was commented out" it leads me to sit and think, did mean that you removed code (for all practical purposes) by commenting it out? Or was there code, commented out, and was removed?

    – BruceWayne
    Apr 3 at 20:50







  • 8





    @jpmc26 Ack, be careful about universalizing your own dialect. Your criticisms are all correct, but "user login" is an event (a "user account" is just that), "logged-in users" is perfectly idiomatic (authentication can be performed in other ways, such as with OAuth), and using an adjective like "authenticated" in an adjective clause has more to do with the train of thought of the speaker than style.

    – chrylis
    Apr 3 at 21:25






  • 5





    Commit messages and idiomatic jargon are pretty far away from formal writing, there's no conflict here. Use "commented-out code" in your commits, tweets, and emails, use more formal language in your presentation to the Queen of Sweden.

    – barbecue
    Apr 3 at 21:43















42














There is a better way to phrase it, but it's also OK. That is to say, in contexts other than a commit message, you would probably want to rewrite the sentence, but for an internal note, it's fine.



The main issue with the sentence is that you're using commented out as a compound adjective and so you should probably hyphenate the phrase: "Remove the commented-out code." Hyphenation would also improve your last example sentence: "Help the left-behind people" is better, but "Help the people who were left behind" is better still.



If I were trying to express the idea of your commit message in a more formal context, a context where prose style is important, or really any context without a strict and low character limit, I would write, "Remove the code which was commented out."






share|improve this answer


















  • 87





    Your answer is grammatically correct, but it misses an important fact: "commented-out code" is idiomatic in the relevant domain of expertise. The phrase is widely used and well understood by programmers. I would not have a problem using it even in a formal context. Because "commented-out code" is idiomatic, "code which was commented out" is unnecessarily wordy and may intone smugness.

    – jpmc26
    Apr 3 at 18:40







  • 14





    @Juhasz "User login" is a synonym for "account," not a user in the logged in state. The idiomatic short phrase for "users who are logged in" would be "authenticated users." "Logged-in users" would be recognizable but not idiomatic. More relevant to this question, "users who are authenticated" would certainly sound strange in most contexts. I'm not sure what the rest has to do with reformulating the phrase into "the code which was commented out."

    – jpmc26
    Apr 3 at 19:30







  • 14





    Maybe it's just me, but for programming specifically, I'll agree and say "Remove the commented-out code" is better for a commit message. If the commit message was "Remove the code which was commented out" it leads me to sit and think, did mean that you removed code (for all practical purposes) by commenting it out? Or was there code, commented out, and was removed?

    – BruceWayne
    Apr 3 at 20:50







  • 8





    @jpmc26 Ack, be careful about universalizing your own dialect. Your criticisms are all correct, but "user login" is an event (a "user account" is just that), "logged-in users" is perfectly idiomatic (authentication can be performed in other ways, such as with OAuth), and using an adjective like "authenticated" in an adjective clause has more to do with the train of thought of the speaker than style.

    – chrylis
    Apr 3 at 21:25






  • 5





    Commit messages and idiomatic jargon are pretty far away from formal writing, there's no conflict here. Use "commented-out code" in your commits, tweets, and emails, use more formal language in your presentation to the Queen of Sweden.

    – barbecue
    Apr 3 at 21:43













42












42








42







There is a better way to phrase it, but it's also OK. That is to say, in contexts other than a commit message, you would probably want to rewrite the sentence, but for an internal note, it's fine.



The main issue with the sentence is that you're using commented out as a compound adjective and so you should probably hyphenate the phrase: "Remove the commented-out code." Hyphenation would also improve your last example sentence: "Help the left-behind people" is better, but "Help the people who were left behind" is better still.



If I were trying to express the idea of your commit message in a more formal context, a context where prose style is important, or really any context without a strict and low character limit, I would write, "Remove the code which was commented out."






share|improve this answer













There is a better way to phrase it, but it's also OK. That is to say, in contexts other than a commit message, you would probably want to rewrite the sentence, but for an internal note, it's fine.



The main issue with the sentence is that you're using commented out as a compound adjective and so you should probably hyphenate the phrase: "Remove the commented-out code." Hyphenation would also improve your last example sentence: "Help the left-behind people" is better, but "Help the people who were left behind" is better still.



If I were trying to express the idea of your commit message in a more formal context, a context where prose style is important, or really any context without a strict and low character limit, I would write, "Remove the code which was commented out."







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Apr 3 at 14:23









JuhaszJuhasz

3,2781814




3,2781814







  • 87





    Your answer is grammatically correct, but it misses an important fact: "commented-out code" is idiomatic in the relevant domain of expertise. The phrase is widely used and well understood by programmers. I would not have a problem using it even in a formal context. Because "commented-out code" is idiomatic, "code which was commented out" is unnecessarily wordy and may intone smugness.

    – jpmc26
    Apr 3 at 18:40







  • 14





    @Juhasz "User login" is a synonym for "account," not a user in the logged in state. The idiomatic short phrase for "users who are logged in" would be "authenticated users." "Logged-in users" would be recognizable but not idiomatic. More relevant to this question, "users who are authenticated" would certainly sound strange in most contexts. I'm not sure what the rest has to do with reformulating the phrase into "the code which was commented out."

    – jpmc26
    Apr 3 at 19:30







  • 14





    Maybe it's just me, but for programming specifically, I'll agree and say "Remove the commented-out code" is better for a commit message. If the commit message was "Remove the code which was commented out" it leads me to sit and think, did mean that you removed code (for all practical purposes) by commenting it out? Or was there code, commented out, and was removed?

    – BruceWayne
    Apr 3 at 20:50







  • 8





    @jpmc26 Ack, be careful about universalizing your own dialect. Your criticisms are all correct, but "user login" is an event (a "user account" is just that), "logged-in users" is perfectly idiomatic (authentication can be performed in other ways, such as with OAuth), and using an adjective like "authenticated" in an adjective clause has more to do with the train of thought of the speaker than style.

    – chrylis
    Apr 3 at 21:25






  • 5





    Commit messages and idiomatic jargon are pretty far away from formal writing, there's no conflict here. Use "commented-out code" in your commits, tweets, and emails, use more formal language in your presentation to the Queen of Sweden.

    – barbecue
    Apr 3 at 21:43












  • 87





    Your answer is grammatically correct, but it misses an important fact: "commented-out code" is idiomatic in the relevant domain of expertise. The phrase is widely used and well understood by programmers. I would not have a problem using it even in a formal context. Because "commented-out code" is idiomatic, "code which was commented out" is unnecessarily wordy and may intone smugness.

    – jpmc26
    Apr 3 at 18:40







  • 14





    @Juhasz "User login" is a synonym for "account," not a user in the logged in state. The idiomatic short phrase for "users who are logged in" would be "authenticated users." "Logged-in users" would be recognizable but not idiomatic. More relevant to this question, "users who are authenticated" would certainly sound strange in most contexts. I'm not sure what the rest has to do with reformulating the phrase into "the code which was commented out."

    – jpmc26
    Apr 3 at 19:30







  • 14





    Maybe it's just me, but for programming specifically, I'll agree and say "Remove the commented-out code" is better for a commit message. If the commit message was "Remove the code which was commented out" it leads me to sit and think, did mean that you removed code (for all practical purposes) by commenting it out? Or was there code, commented out, and was removed?

    – BruceWayne
    Apr 3 at 20:50







  • 8





    @jpmc26 Ack, be careful about universalizing your own dialect. Your criticisms are all correct, but "user login" is an event (a "user account" is just that), "logged-in users" is perfectly idiomatic (authentication can be performed in other ways, such as with OAuth), and using an adjective like "authenticated" in an adjective clause has more to do with the train of thought of the speaker than style.

    – chrylis
    Apr 3 at 21:25






  • 5





    Commit messages and idiomatic jargon are pretty far away from formal writing, there's no conflict here. Use "commented-out code" in your commits, tweets, and emails, use more formal language in your presentation to the Queen of Sweden.

    – barbecue
    Apr 3 at 21:43







87




87





Your answer is grammatically correct, but it misses an important fact: "commented-out code" is idiomatic in the relevant domain of expertise. The phrase is widely used and well understood by programmers. I would not have a problem using it even in a formal context. Because "commented-out code" is idiomatic, "code which was commented out" is unnecessarily wordy and may intone smugness.

– jpmc26
Apr 3 at 18:40






Your answer is grammatically correct, but it misses an important fact: "commented-out code" is idiomatic in the relevant domain of expertise. The phrase is widely used and well understood by programmers. I would not have a problem using it even in a formal context. Because "commented-out code" is idiomatic, "code which was commented out" is unnecessarily wordy and may intone smugness.

– jpmc26
Apr 3 at 18:40





14




14





@Juhasz "User login" is a synonym for "account," not a user in the logged in state. The idiomatic short phrase for "users who are logged in" would be "authenticated users." "Logged-in users" would be recognizable but not idiomatic. More relevant to this question, "users who are authenticated" would certainly sound strange in most contexts. I'm not sure what the rest has to do with reformulating the phrase into "the code which was commented out."

– jpmc26
Apr 3 at 19:30






@Juhasz "User login" is a synonym for "account," not a user in the logged in state. The idiomatic short phrase for "users who are logged in" would be "authenticated users." "Logged-in users" would be recognizable but not idiomatic. More relevant to this question, "users who are authenticated" would certainly sound strange in most contexts. I'm not sure what the rest has to do with reformulating the phrase into "the code which was commented out."

– jpmc26
Apr 3 at 19:30





14




14





Maybe it's just me, but for programming specifically, I'll agree and say "Remove the commented-out code" is better for a commit message. If the commit message was "Remove the code which was commented out" it leads me to sit and think, did mean that you removed code (for all practical purposes) by commenting it out? Or was there code, commented out, and was removed?

– BruceWayne
Apr 3 at 20:50






Maybe it's just me, but for programming specifically, I'll agree and say "Remove the commented-out code" is better for a commit message. If the commit message was "Remove the code which was commented out" it leads me to sit and think, did mean that you removed code (for all practical purposes) by commenting it out? Or was there code, commented out, and was removed?

– BruceWayne
Apr 3 at 20:50





8




8





@jpmc26 Ack, be careful about universalizing your own dialect. Your criticisms are all correct, but "user login" is an event (a "user account" is just that), "logged-in users" is perfectly idiomatic (authentication can be performed in other ways, such as with OAuth), and using an adjective like "authenticated" in an adjective clause has more to do with the train of thought of the speaker than style.

– chrylis
Apr 3 at 21:25





@jpmc26 Ack, be careful about universalizing your own dialect. Your criticisms are all correct, but "user login" is an event (a "user account" is just that), "logged-in users" is perfectly idiomatic (authentication can be performed in other ways, such as with OAuth), and using an adjective like "authenticated" in an adjective clause has more to do with the train of thought of the speaker than style.

– chrylis
Apr 3 at 21:25




5




5





Commit messages and idiomatic jargon are pretty far away from formal writing, there's no conflict here. Use "commented-out code" in your commits, tweets, and emails, use more formal language in your presentation to the Queen of Sweden.

– barbecue
Apr 3 at 21:43





Commit messages and idiomatic jargon are pretty far away from formal writing, there's no conflict here. Use "commented-out code" in your commits, tweets, and emails, use more formal language in your presentation to the Queen of Sweden.

– barbecue
Apr 3 at 21:43













27














Commit summaries (the single first line of a commit, and often the entire message) are a defined genre of technical speech because they have a specific role of identifying changes in a big list of changes and are limited to a certain number of characters. In particular, they are usually written in imperative ("Remove" vs. "Removed") and in headlinese for the same goal of fitting information into a limited space. Thus these are all considered helpful commit summaries:




  • Remove commented-out code

  • Refactor foo service

  • Add new SMS implementation for Bar Mobile



As noted elsewhere, "commented-out" should be hyphenated as it's a phrasal adjective; otherwise, the way you're phrasing it is stylistically preferred for this specific context.






share|improve this answer




















  • 4





    @CJDennis It's not really harmful to do that, but it's more important to keep to 72 characters than to add lubricant.

    – chrylis
    Apr 3 at 23:53






  • 2





    Who says that in the 21st century it's important to not go above 72 characters? My commit messages sometimes have single lines longer than 72 characters, and a total count of thousands of characters without issues.

    – CJ Dennis
    Apr 4 at 0:06






  • 7





    @CJDennis It's fine on commit messages; I sometimes write multiple paragraphs. The commit summary, on the other hand, is processed by tons of tooling, and GitHub, for example, will truncate it.

    – chrylis
    Apr 4 at 0:35






  • 1





    From what I've seen, GitHub doesn't truncate it (i.e. only store the first 72 characters), but in certain limited views it will show the first 72 characters as a preview. The full text is visible in a different view. My advice is that if you need more than 72 characters, use them! A 100 character commit summary (without irrelevancies) is unlikely to go under 72 characters by changing it to "headlinese".

    – CJ Dennis
    2 days ago






  • 6





    @CJDennis you can use as many characters as you want in a message but 72 is the standard for headings which is the first line. I don't want to go back and forth between views to know what the summary of the message is - FEAT1234: Making changes to the authentication procedure to allow for Single Sign-On users is too long and it will cut of at allow for S. OK, I made this a bit too word-y but the idea is that a descriptive doesn't really fit. A message of "Change authentication for SSO users" is enough as a heading - write an essay as the message, if you want.

    – VLAZ
    2 days ago















27














Commit summaries (the single first line of a commit, and often the entire message) are a defined genre of technical speech because they have a specific role of identifying changes in a big list of changes and are limited to a certain number of characters. In particular, they are usually written in imperative ("Remove" vs. "Removed") and in headlinese for the same goal of fitting information into a limited space. Thus these are all considered helpful commit summaries:




  • Remove commented-out code

  • Refactor foo service

  • Add new SMS implementation for Bar Mobile



As noted elsewhere, "commented-out" should be hyphenated as it's a phrasal adjective; otherwise, the way you're phrasing it is stylistically preferred for this specific context.






share|improve this answer




















  • 4





    @CJDennis It's not really harmful to do that, but it's more important to keep to 72 characters than to add lubricant.

    – chrylis
    Apr 3 at 23:53






  • 2





    Who says that in the 21st century it's important to not go above 72 characters? My commit messages sometimes have single lines longer than 72 characters, and a total count of thousands of characters without issues.

    – CJ Dennis
    Apr 4 at 0:06






  • 7





    @CJDennis It's fine on commit messages; I sometimes write multiple paragraphs. The commit summary, on the other hand, is processed by tons of tooling, and GitHub, for example, will truncate it.

    – chrylis
    Apr 4 at 0:35






  • 1





    From what I've seen, GitHub doesn't truncate it (i.e. only store the first 72 characters), but in certain limited views it will show the first 72 characters as a preview. The full text is visible in a different view. My advice is that if you need more than 72 characters, use them! A 100 character commit summary (without irrelevancies) is unlikely to go under 72 characters by changing it to "headlinese".

    – CJ Dennis
    2 days ago






  • 6





    @CJDennis you can use as many characters as you want in a message but 72 is the standard for headings which is the first line. I don't want to go back and forth between views to know what the summary of the message is - FEAT1234: Making changes to the authentication procedure to allow for Single Sign-On users is too long and it will cut of at allow for S. OK, I made this a bit too word-y but the idea is that a descriptive doesn't really fit. A message of "Change authentication for SSO users" is enough as a heading - write an essay as the message, if you want.

    – VLAZ
    2 days ago













27












27








27







Commit summaries (the single first line of a commit, and often the entire message) are a defined genre of technical speech because they have a specific role of identifying changes in a big list of changes and are limited to a certain number of characters. In particular, they are usually written in imperative ("Remove" vs. "Removed") and in headlinese for the same goal of fitting information into a limited space. Thus these are all considered helpful commit summaries:




  • Remove commented-out code

  • Refactor foo service

  • Add new SMS implementation for Bar Mobile



As noted elsewhere, "commented-out" should be hyphenated as it's a phrasal adjective; otherwise, the way you're phrasing it is stylistically preferred for this specific context.






share|improve this answer















Commit summaries (the single first line of a commit, and often the entire message) are a defined genre of technical speech because they have a specific role of identifying changes in a big list of changes and are limited to a certain number of characters. In particular, they are usually written in imperative ("Remove" vs. "Removed") and in headlinese for the same goal of fitting information into a limited space. Thus these are all considered helpful commit summaries:




  • Remove commented-out code

  • Refactor foo service

  • Add new SMS implementation for Bar Mobile



As noted elsewhere, "commented-out" should be hyphenated as it's a phrasal adjective; otherwise, the way you're phrasing it is stylistically preferred for this specific context.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago









JJJ

6,222102646




6,222102646










answered Apr 3 at 21:22









chrylischrylis

69267




69267







  • 4





    @CJDennis It's not really harmful to do that, but it's more important to keep to 72 characters than to add lubricant.

    – chrylis
    Apr 3 at 23:53






  • 2





    Who says that in the 21st century it's important to not go above 72 characters? My commit messages sometimes have single lines longer than 72 characters, and a total count of thousands of characters without issues.

    – CJ Dennis
    Apr 4 at 0:06






  • 7





    @CJDennis It's fine on commit messages; I sometimes write multiple paragraphs. The commit summary, on the other hand, is processed by tons of tooling, and GitHub, for example, will truncate it.

    – chrylis
    Apr 4 at 0:35






  • 1





    From what I've seen, GitHub doesn't truncate it (i.e. only store the first 72 characters), but in certain limited views it will show the first 72 characters as a preview. The full text is visible in a different view. My advice is that if you need more than 72 characters, use them! A 100 character commit summary (without irrelevancies) is unlikely to go under 72 characters by changing it to "headlinese".

    – CJ Dennis
    2 days ago






  • 6





    @CJDennis you can use as many characters as you want in a message but 72 is the standard for headings which is the first line. I don't want to go back and forth between views to know what the summary of the message is - FEAT1234: Making changes to the authentication procedure to allow for Single Sign-On users is too long and it will cut of at allow for S. OK, I made this a bit too word-y but the idea is that a descriptive doesn't really fit. A message of "Change authentication for SSO users" is enough as a heading - write an essay as the message, if you want.

    – VLAZ
    2 days ago












  • 4





    @CJDennis It's not really harmful to do that, but it's more important to keep to 72 characters than to add lubricant.

    – chrylis
    Apr 3 at 23:53






  • 2





    Who says that in the 21st century it's important to not go above 72 characters? My commit messages sometimes have single lines longer than 72 characters, and a total count of thousands of characters without issues.

    – CJ Dennis
    Apr 4 at 0:06






  • 7





    @CJDennis It's fine on commit messages; I sometimes write multiple paragraphs. The commit summary, on the other hand, is processed by tons of tooling, and GitHub, for example, will truncate it.

    – chrylis
    Apr 4 at 0:35






  • 1





    From what I've seen, GitHub doesn't truncate it (i.e. only store the first 72 characters), but in certain limited views it will show the first 72 characters as a preview. The full text is visible in a different view. My advice is that if you need more than 72 characters, use them! A 100 character commit summary (without irrelevancies) is unlikely to go under 72 characters by changing it to "headlinese".

    – CJ Dennis
    2 days ago






  • 6





    @CJDennis you can use as many characters as you want in a message but 72 is the standard for headings which is the first line. I don't want to go back and forth between views to know what the summary of the message is - FEAT1234: Making changes to the authentication procedure to allow for Single Sign-On users is too long and it will cut of at allow for S. OK, I made this a bit too word-y but the idea is that a descriptive doesn't really fit. A message of "Change authentication for SSO users" is enough as a heading - write an essay as the message, if you want.

    – VLAZ
    2 days ago







4




4





@CJDennis It's not really harmful to do that, but it's more important to keep to 72 characters than to add lubricant.

– chrylis
Apr 3 at 23:53





@CJDennis It's not really harmful to do that, but it's more important to keep to 72 characters than to add lubricant.

– chrylis
Apr 3 at 23:53




2




2





Who says that in the 21st century it's important to not go above 72 characters? My commit messages sometimes have single lines longer than 72 characters, and a total count of thousands of characters without issues.

– CJ Dennis
Apr 4 at 0:06





Who says that in the 21st century it's important to not go above 72 characters? My commit messages sometimes have single lines longer than 72 characters, and a total count of thousands of characters without issues.

– CJ Dennis
Apr 4 at 0:06




7




7





@CJDennis It's fine on commit messages; I sometimes write multiple paragraphs. The commit summary, on the other hand, is processed by tons of tooling, and GitHub, for example, will truncate it.

– chrylis
Apr 4 at 0:35





@CJDennis It's fine on commit messages; I sometimes write multiple paragraphs. The commit summary, on the other hand, is processed by tons of tooling, and GitHub, for example, will truncate it.

– chrylis
Apr 4 at 0:35




1




1





From what I've seen, GitHub doesn't truncate it (i.e. only store the first 72 characters), but in certain limited views it will show the first 72 characters as a preview. The full text is visible in a different view. My advice is that if you need more than 72 characters, use them! A 100 character commit summary (without irrelevancies) is unlikely to go under 72 characters by changing it to "headlinese".

– CJ Dennis
2 days ago





From what I've seen, GitHub doesn't truncate it (i.e. only store the first 72 characters), but in certain limited views it will show the first 72 characters as a preview. The full text is visible in a different view. My advice is that if you need more than 72 characters, use them! A 100 character commit summary (without irrelevancies) is unlikely to go under 72 characters by changing it to "headlinese".

– CJ Dennis
2 days ago




6




6





@CJDennis you can use as many characters as you want in a message but 72 is the standard for headings which is the first line. I don't want to go back and forth between views to know what the summary of the message is - FEAT1234: Making changes to the authentication procedure to allow for Single Sign-On users is too long and it will cut of at allow for S. OK, I made this a bit too word-y but the idea is that a descriptive doesn't really fit. A message of "Change authentication for SSO users" is enough as a heading - write an essay as the message, if you want.

– VLAZ
2 days ago





@CJDennis you can use as many characters as you want in a message but 72 is the standard for headings which is the first line. I don't want to go back and forth between views to know what the summary of the message is - FEAT1234: Making changes to the authentication procedure to allow for Single Sign-On users is too long and it will cut of at allow for S. OK, I made this a bit too word-y but the idea is that a descriptive doesn't really fit. A message of "Change authentication for SSO users" is enough as a heading - write an essay as the message, if you want.

– VLAZ
2 days ago











-7














Just to add the pedantic view, 'out' is essentially redundant.



'Remove commented code' works, or to more accurately explain the commit 'Remove obsolete code' is probably better.



Having said that, 'commented out' is pretty much an industry term. If you wish to keep the 'out' (to differentiate from regular language comments that assist future readers, as opposed to comments that hide code from the compiler, I suppose), I see no need to hyphenate the term. It is common enough (especially among your target audience: commit log readers) to be immediately recognised and doesn't create ambiguity when left un-hyphenated.






share|improve this answer


















  • 15





    'commented out' is pretty much an industry term — Right. And unfortunately for your first paragraph, so is 'commented code'! Commented code (especially well commented code) is a pro, not a con. "Gallant's code is commented. Goofus's code is commented out." (So "Remove commented code" would be less technically correct, but of course a human reader would supply the missing "out" from context.)

    – Quuxplusone
    2 days ago






  • 27





    Most people I know would consider "commented code" to refer to code that has comments in it, and "commented-out code" to refer to code that is put between comment markings in order to make the compiler/interpreter ignore it. They are not synonyms in the common usage that I know, so the "out" is not redundant. In fact, "comment out" is a phrasal verb modelled on "cross out", "scratch out", and "rub out", all of which have quite distinct meanings if "out" is omitted.

    – Robert Furber
    2 days ago






  • 16





    I agree with the other commenters. To me "commented-out code" has a very different meaning from "commented code". The latter meaning code that includes comments, the former being code that has become a comment and is now obsolete. They are not synonymous.

    – user2705196
    2 days ago






  • 3





    I agree, so this answer is wrong: "commented code" and "commented-out code" are different things. What is more, "obsolete code" is different yet again: it usually won't have been commented out.

    – reinierpost
    2 days ago






  • 2





    @mcalex "After going through identifiers, key words, strings etc, I said all the dark green stuff was simply commented code ..." this is actually, technically, just wrong, and maybe the source of your confusion re: the responses here. The "green stuff" itself is not "commented code". It is code comments, commonly referred to within domain as simply "comments". It may CONTAIN code that has been "commented out" (meaning: rendered into being a comment). Code that has comments ON IT (usually to the right, or above/below) is "commented code"... to be actually pedantic.

    – taswyn
    2 days ago
















-7














Just to add the pedantic view, 'out' is essentially redundant.



'Remove commented code' works, or to more accurately explain the commit 'Remove obsolete code' is probably better.



Having said that, 'commented out' is pretty much an industry term. If you wish to keep the 'out' (to differentiate from regular language comments that assist future readers, as opposed to comments that hide code from the compiler, I suppose), I see no need to hyphenate the term. It is common enough (especially among your target audience: commit log readers) to be immediately recognised and doesn't create ambiguity when left un-hyphenated.






share|improve this answer


















  • 15





    'commented out' is pretty much an industry term — Right. And unfortunately for your first paragraph, so is 'commented code'! Commented code (especially well commented code) is a pro, not a con. "Gallant's code is commented. Goofus's code is commented out." (So "Remove commented code" would be less technically correct, but of course a human reader would supply the missing "out" from context.)

    – Quuxplusone
    2 days ago






  • 27





    Most people I know would consider "commented code" to refer to code that has comments in it, and "commented-out code" to refer to code that is put between comment markings in order to make the compiler/interpreter ignore it. They are not synonyms in the common usage that I know, so the "out" is not redundant. In fact, "comment out" is a phrasal verb modelled on "cross out", "scratch out", and "rub out", all of which have quite distinct meanings if "out" is omitted.

    – Robert Furber
    2 days ago






  • 16





    I agree with the other commenters. To me "commented-out code" has a very different meaning from "commented code". The latter meaning code that includes comments, the former being code that has become a comment and is now obsolete. They are not synonymous.

    – user2705196
    2 days ago






  • 3





    I agree, so this answer is wrong: "commented code" and "commented-out code" are different things. What is more, "obsolete code" is different yet again: it usually won't have been commented out.

    – reinierpost
    2 days ago






  • 2





    @mcalex "After going through identifiers, key words, strings etc, I said all the dark green stuff was simply commented code ..." this is actually, technically, just wrong, and maybe the source of your confusion re: the responses here. The "green stuff" itself is not "commented code". It is code comments, commonly referred to within domain as simply "comments". It may CONTAIN code that has been "commented out" (meaning: rendered into being a comment). Code that has comments ON IT (usually to the right, or above/below) is "commented code"... to be actually pedantic.

    – taswyn
    2 days ago














-7












-7








-7







Just to add the pedantic view, 'out' is essentially redundant.



'Remove commented code' works, or to more accurately explain the commit 'Remove obsolete code' is probably better.



Having said that, 'commented out' is pretty much an industry term. If you wish to keep the 'out' (to differentiate from regular language comments that assist future readers, as opposed to comments that hide code from the compiler, I suppose), I see no need to hyphenate the term. It is common enough (especially among your target audience: commit log readers) to be immediately recognised and doesn't create ambiguity when left un-hyphenated.






share|improve this answer













Just to add the pedantic view, 'out' is essentially redundant.



'Remove commented code' works, or to more accurately explain the commit 'Remove obsolete code' is probably better.



Having said that, 'commented out' is pretty much an industry term. If you wish to keep the 'out' (to differentiate from regular language comments that assist future readers, as opposed to comments that hide code from the compiler, I suppose), I see no need to hyphenate the term. It is common enough (especially among your target audience: commit log readers) to be immediately recognised and doesn't create ambiguity when left un-hyphenated.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 2 days ago









mcalexmcalex

717511




717511







  • 15





    'commented out' is pretty much an industry term — Right. And unfortunately for your first paragraph, so is 'commented code'! Commented code (especially well commented code) is a pro, not a con. "Gallant's code is commented. Goofus's code is commented out." (So "Remove commented code" would be less technically correct, but of course a human reader would supply the missing "out" from context.)

    – Quuxplusone
    2 days ago






  • 27





    Most people I know would consider "commented code" to refer to code that has comments in it, and "commented-out code" to refer to code that is put between comment markings in order to make the compiler/interpreter ignore it. They are not synonyms in the common usage that I know, so the "out" is not redundant. In fact, "comment out" is a phrasal verb modelled on "cross out", "scratch out", and "rub out", all of which have quite distinct meanings if "out" is omitted.

    – Robert Furber
    2 days ago






  • 16





    I agree with the other commenters. To me "commented-out code" has a very different meaning from "commented code". The latter meaning code that includes comments, the former being code that has become a comment and is now obsolete. They are not synonymous.

    – user2705196
    2 days ago






  • 3





    I agree, so this answer is wrong: "commented code" and "commented-out code" are different things. What is more, "obsolete code" is different yet again: it usually won't have been commented out.

    – reinierpost
    2 days ago






  • 2





    @mcalex "After going through identifiers, key words, strings etc, I said all the dark green stuff was simply commented code ..." this is actually, technically, just wrong, and maybe the source of your confusion re: the responses here. The "green stuff" itself is not "commented code". It is code comments, commonly referred to within domain as simply "comments". It may CONTAIN code that has been "commented out" (meaning: rendered into being a comment). Code that has comments ON IT (usually to the right, or above/below) is "commented code"... to be actually pedantic.

    – taswyn
    2 days ago













  • 15





    'commented out' is pretty much an industry term — Right. And unfortunately for your first paragraph, so is 'commented code'! Commented code (especially well commented code) is a pro, not a con. "Gallant's code is commented. Goofus's code is commented out." (So "Remove commented code" would be less technically correct, but of course a human reader would supply the missing "out" from context.)

    – Quuxplusone
    2 days ago






  • 27





    Most people I know would consider "commented code" to refer to code that has comments in it, and "commented-out code" to refer to code that is put between comment markings in order to make the compiler/interpreter ignore it. They are not synonyms in the common usage that I know, so the "out" is not redundant. In fact, "comment out" is a phrasal verb modelled on "cross out", "scratch out", and "rub out", all of which have quite distinct meanings if "out" is omitted.

    – Robert Furber
    2 days ago






  • 16





    I agree with the other commenters. To me "commented-out code" has a very different meaning from "commented code". The latter meaning code that includes comments, the former being code that has become a comment and is now obsolete. They are not synonymous.

    – user2705196
    2 days ago






  • 3





    I agree, so this answer is wrong: "commented code" and "commented-out code" are different things. What is more, "obsolete code" is different yet again: it usually won't have been commented out.

    – reinierpost
    2 days ago






  • 2





    @mcalex "After going through identifiers, key words, strings etc, I said all the dark green stuff was simply commented code ..." this is actually, technically, just wrong, and maybe the source of your confusion re: the responses here. The "green stuff" itself is not "commented code". It is code comments, commonly referred to within domain as simply "comments". It may CONTAIN code that has been "commented out" (meaning: rendered into being a comment). Code that has comments ON IT (usually to the right, or above/below) is "commented code"... to be actually pedantic.

    – taswyn
    2 days ago








15




15





'commented out' is pretty much an industry term — Right. And unfortunately for your first paragraph, so is 'commented code'! Commented code (especially well commented code) is a pro, not a con. "Gallant's code is commented. Goofus's code is commented out." (So "Remove commented code" would be less technically correct, but of course a human reader would supply the missing "out" from context.)

– Quuxplusone
2 days ago





'commented out' is pretty much an industry term — Right. And unfortunately for your first paragraph, so is 'commented code'! Commented code (especially well commented code) is a pro, not a con. "Gallant's code is commented. Goofus's code is commented out." (So "Remove commented code" would be less technically correct, but of course a human reader would supply the missing "out" from context.)

– Quuxplusone
2 days ago




27




27





Most people I know would consider "commented code" to refer to code that has comments in it, and "commented-out code" to refer to code that is put between comment markings in order to make the compiler/interpreter ignore it. They are not synonyms in the common usage that I know, so the "out" is not redundant. In fact, "comment out" is a phrasal verb modelled on "cross out", "scratch out", and "rub out", all of which have quite distinct meanings if "out" is omitted.

– Robert Furber
2 days ago





Most people I know would consider "commented code" to refer to code that has comments in it, and "commented-out code" to refer to code that is put between comment markings in order to make the compiler/interpreter ignore it. They are not synonyms in the common usage that I know, so the "out" is not redundant. In fact, "comment out" is a phrasal verb modelled on "cross out", "scratch out", and "rub out", all of which have quite distinct meanings if "out" is omitted.

– Robert Furber
2 days ago




16




16





I agree with the other commenters. To me "commented-out code" has a very different meaning from "commented code". The latter meaning code that includes comments, the former being code that has become a comment and is now obsolete. They are not synonymous.

– user2705196
2 days ago





I agree with the other commenters. To me "commented-out code" has a very different meaning from "commented code". The latter meaning code that includes comments, the former being code that has become a comment and is now obsolete. They are not synonymous.

– user2705196
2 days ago




3




3





I agree, so this answer is wrong: "commented code" and "commented-out code" are different things. What is more, "obsolete code" is different yet again: it usually won't have been commented out.

– reinierpost
2 days ago





I agree, so this answer is wrong: "commented code" and "commented-out code" are different things. What is more, "obsolete code" is different yet again: it usually won't have been commented out.

– reinierpost
2 days ago




2




2





@mcalex "After going through identifiers, key words, strings etc, I said all the dark green stuff was simply commented code ..." this is actually, technically, just wrong, and maybe the source of your confusion re: the responses here. The "green stuff" itself is not "commented code". It is code comments, commonly referred to within domain as simply "comments". It may CONTAIN code that has been "commented out" (meaning: rendered into being a comment). Code that has comments ON IT (usually to the right, or above/below) is "commented code"... to be actually pedantic.

– taswyn
2 days ago






@mcalex "After going through identifiers, key words, strings etc, I said all the dark green stuff was simply commented code ..." this is actually, technically, just wrong, and maybe the source of your confusion re: the responses here. The "green stuff" itself is not "commented code". It is code comments, commonly referred to within domain as simply "comments". It may CONTAIN code that has been "commented out" (meaning: rendered into being a comment). Code that has comments ON IT (usually to the right, or above/below) is "commented code"... to be actually pedantic.

– taswyn
2 days ago






protected by Andrew Leach Apr 3 at 21:45



Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



Popular posts from this blog

Sum ergo cogito? 1 nng

419 nièngy_Soadمي 19bal1.5o_g

Queiggey Chernihivv 9NnOo i Zw X QqKk LpB