Skip to main content
Engineering LibreTexts

5.2: Tie Code and Questions

  • Page ID
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    Intent Keep the questions and answers concerning your reengineering activities synchronized with the code by storing them directly in the source files.


    How do you keep track of your understanding about a piece of code and the questions that you have, keep these remarks synchronized with the code during its future evolution, and share them with the other members of your team?

    This problem is difficult because:

    • Writing up what you know and don’t know about the system you are analyzing is tedious and time-consuming.

    • Your understanding is a moving target, so it is hard to keep a written document up-to-date.

    • If you don’t write down your questions and insights as soon as they occur to you, you will not be able to keep track of them.

    • You want to share your knowledge with the team to maximize its value.

    • Logging questions and answers in log files, bulletin boards or email distribution lists may be convenient for disseminating knowledge within the team, and may provide a convenient searchable history of the team’s understanding, but when you are looking at a piece of code, it will be hard to tell what questions and answers pertain to it.

    Yet, solving this problem is feasible because:

    • You can annotate the code, and therefore record your understanding physically close to the code element it refers to.


    While you are working on the code annotate it directly and immediately with the questions you are facing.

    In principle there are two ways to annotate the code.

    • Comment-based Annotations. This approach uses the commenting conventions of the programming language and as such is better suited for a text-oriented environment. A few conventions are needed to distinguish the normal comments from the annotations.
      /* #to: John #by: SD #on: 3/12/99 *****
          Screws up when we have nested IFs. */

      Basic tools part of your program environment can then be used to search and modify annotations. With a little bit of extra effort one can easily build tools to query, extract and cross-index all comment- based annotations.
    • Method-based annotations. This approach exploits the possibility to query which method invokes a given method, a feature provided by many of today’s programming environments. The idea is to declare a global method accepting a few strings as an argument and having an empty method body. Each time you want to annotate a particular piece of code, you invoke that method passing your annotations as a parameter.
      this.annotateCode("#to: John #by: SD #on: 3/12/99",
          "Screws up when we have nested IFs.");

      You can then use the querying and browsing facilities of your programming environment to identify the locations where this special method is invoked, thus where the annotations occur. Most programming environments can be extended by means of little scripts, in which case it is possible to develop tools to generate reports about all annotations.
      Note that the less you change the code, the less likely it is that you will introduce errors. This makes the comment-based version safer than the method-based version.


    • Record your annotations as close as possible to the code to which they refer.

    • Annotations may be questions, hypotheses, “to do” lists, or simply observations about the code that you wish to record for future reference.

    • Use conventions to identify your annotations. In a team context, include, for example, the initials of the developer that made the comments and the date the comment was entered. This way you can easily query them.

    • Follow the corporate practices. If comments are written in a language other than English, continue if you can. However, if you have the choice never write your annotations in a language different from that in which the source code is written (English in most cases). Otherwise, you create a different context and force the reader to switch between them.

    • When you discover the answer to any one of your questions, immediately update the annotation for the benefit of future readers, or simply delete the question if it is no longer relevant.



    • Natural Synchronization. You keep the code and the annotations in close physical proximity, and you thereby improve your chances of keeping them in sync. While modifying the code, you will more naturally modify the annotations, or remove them if they become obsolete.

    • Improves Team Communication. Tie Code and Questions avoids that team members must open an extra communication channel (e-mail, bulletin boards, ...). They must read the code they work with anyhow so you can multiplex the code as a communication channel.

    • Minimize Context Description. When you annotate the code you are immediately in context. This way you will minimize the need to describe the context of your questions and keep your effort low while documenting your questions and annotations.


    • Passive in Nature. Questions that you enter are not necessarily directed to anyone and even if they are, it is not certain that the addressee will read them or answer them in time. Additional tools are needed to collect the annotations and maybe even notify the appropriate persons.

    • Process Incompatibility. Many companies are organized around a hierarchical reporting structure. Tie Code and Questions may be rejected by these organizations because it circumvents the normal communication channels. Also, some corporate practices impose strong constraints on what programmers are allowed to do with the code, which may limit the potential if this pattern. For instance, if annotations cannot be removed when they become obsolete, they will create too much noise to be useful.


    • Finding the Right Granularity. As with any kind of comments, you should take care to introduce just the right amount of detail. Terse or cryptic annotations quickly lose their value, and verbose annotations will distract the reader from the code itself.

    • Motivating the Programmers to Write Comments. Programmers generally do not like to write comments or documentation. One way of motivating them is to use the annotations during code reviews or status meetings: this way the comments have an immediate benefit.

    • Quality of the Answers. As with any other kinds of documentation, it may happen that wrong answers are given. One way to deal with this situation is to review the annotations regularly within the team.

    • Eliminating the Annotations. On certain occasions you may wish the remove the annotations. For instance, if you must deliver a “clean” version of the source-code to your customer, or if your compiler isn’t smart enough to remove an invocation of an empty method body. In that case, make sure that you have the proper tools to filter out the annotations.


    This pattern has its roots in literate programming [RS89][Knu92]. A literate program reverses the usual relationship between program text and comments: executable code is embedded within documentation, not the other way around. Literate programming puts the emphasis on keeping the code and its documentation physically close. The physical proximity reduces the effort spent in keeping the code and its documentation in sync.

    Known Uses

    Comment-based annotations. Various programming environments provide implicit support for managing annotations within the code. Emacs, for example, has a built-in tool, called e-tags, which allows you to easily generate a cross-reference database of a a set of files [CRR96]. The Eiffel environment, on the other hand, allows you to assign different levels of visibility to your comments (and your code). If you assign private scope to your annotations you can easily separate the annotations yet make sure that these will not be seen externally.

    The company MediaGeniX — a Belgian company operating in the multi-media sector — used a systematic code tagging mechanism to record information about changes. The programming environment was altered in such a way that every change to the code was automatically annotated with a tag that describes the motivation for the code change (bug fix, change request, new release), the name of developer, and the time of the modification. Only the last tag is kept in the code, but via the configuration management system it is possible to inspect previous tags and changes. The tag also includes a free field where the developers may write what they want and is often used for questions and answers.

    Method-based annotations. The Squeak development team [IKM+97] used this technique not so much to keep track of questions but as a means to facilitate communication in an open-source development project. In this team comments were introduced by invoking the method flag: defined in the class Object. Developers can query all senders of the flag: message to locate annotations. Furthermore, the method is defined to accept a symbol as its argument. This makes it possible to search more specifically, for example, for all the annotations flagged with the symbol #noteForJohn.

    Object>>flag: aSymbol
        "Send this message, with a relevant symbol as argument, to flag
        a message for subsequent retrieval. For example, you might put
        the following line in a number of messages:
            self flag: #returnHereUrgently
        Then, to retrieve all such messages, browse all senders of

    Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\) shows on the top pane all the senders of the flag: message in the Squeak2.7 environment. The bottom pane then shows the code of the method removeEmptyRows that contains a call to the method flag: highlighted. The flag: message is sent with argument #noteToJohn. The actual content of the annotation follows as a comment.

    Finding all senders of a message in Squeak.
    Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Finding all senders of a message in Squeak.

    Related Patterns

    Tie Code and Questions works well in tandem with Refactor to Understand. Questions in the code may often be resolved by refactoring it. Conversely, as you Refactor to Understand, new questions will be raised and can be entered as annotations.

    This page titled 5.2: Tie Code and Questions is shared under a CC BY-SA license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Serge Demeyer, Stéphane Ducasse, Oscar Nierstrasz.

    • Was this article helpful?