Notes/Discussion/Decisions on having `PySequence` implement `java.util.List`...
=== Topics ===
 *[[#initmodule|InitModule]]

----
Topic: `InitModule` <<BR>>
<<Anchor(initmodule)>>
ClarkUpdike Feb 26 2005 <<BR>>
I had originally put in here a detailed anaysis of conflicts between the comments and the source code regarding the `InitModule` interface.  The comments seemed to indicate that `PySequence` should implement `InitModule` but couldn't because the class was abstract and `PyJavaClass` would try to instatiate it erroneously.  But `PyJavaClass` was already correctly using reflection to give an error message in `PyObject __call__(PyObject[] args, String[] keywords)` if an abstract class was passed in.  So then I was trying to track down why the `PyList` wasn't implementing `ClassDictInit`.  It was providing the required static method classDictInit() but it was a do-nothing method and it wasn't calling `PySequence.classDictInit()` like the comments said it should.  So then I diff'd the changes from 2.2a to the tip with new style class changes.  Apparently, all this changed with new style classes.  A case of comments being 2 to 3 generations old. 

<whine><<BR>>My personal opinion:
 *Under-commenting code is bad (only comment the unobvious)
 *Over-commented code can also be bad, and potentially leads to...
 *Wrong/Out-Of-Date comments are worst of all

This wasn't a case of over-commenting, just a case of not maintaining the comments with the code.

</whine>

Of course, if I knew more about the code to begin with, I probably would have figured it out faster.  But the comments are supposed to be there help the neophytes, no?