> >> - What I would really like to see is that when someone spends the time >> to figure something out like this, they add an example/patch the comments >> in the files and then sends the patch off to someone to integrate :-) >> >> I wouldn't like to see any of these situations. If functions were > documented (by the writer), the user wouldn't have to figure out anything > or write patches. I agree with Riccardo also, a lot of functions in IMP > (mine included) are cryptic, or require some knowledge. > I agree it is better when the writer documents it, but there will always be cases where - functionality is used in a way the writer did not foresee - something that was clear to the writer was not clear to someone else - corner cases that the writer wanted to leave ambiguous (to allow more flexibility with implementation, for example) are important to some user (here the act can act a a proposal to disambiguate the corner case) And so I think (especially since the currently the writers don't always even document well enough for themselves), it is a good habit at least for people who otherwise contribute to IMP.