What's the point with these auto generated comments {TForm1}

[balazsszekely]

Very sad news for me. That is part of long tradition. Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.

For historical reasons it should be optional(Editor Options/General/Misc).

[JuhaManninen]

Very sad news for me. That is part of long tradition. Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.

I knew somebody will want them back. So far you are the only one.
Anyway, I guess it must be made optional. Could somebody create a patch please.
I personally am happy to get rid of those comments for good. I always delete them from my own code at once. When I see them in other people's code, I also want to delete them because they are absolute zero-information. I don't see any "spirit" in them.

[guest58172]

Cool, nice to see that an apparently casual topic leads to action.

[Silvio Clécio]

WDYT about to declare this way?:

  TForm1 = class(TForm)
  end;

IMHO declared scopes without any comment or code doesn't sound good. 

[Silvio Clécio]

I removed the comments in r52832. They were in many places.

Very sad news for me. That is part of long tradition. Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.

Fully agreed. By pure logic it should be:

type
  TForm1 = class(TForm)
  end;

By tradition it should remain as is, or some option (disabled by default) for who wants to remove it.

[Silvio Clécio]

For historical reasons it should be optional(Editor Options/General/Misc) "IME handled by System".

Sorry my ignorance, but, what means "IME handled by system"?

[Silvio Clécio]

I wrote a note also in Lazarus mailing list (which was rejected, must find out why).

Hm... I can't see any related message at Lazarus mailing list, so I issued it at http://lists.lazarus-ide.org/pipermail/lazarus/2016-August/229358.html.

[JuhaManninen]

Fully agreed. By pure logic it should be:

type
  TForm1 = class(TForm)
  end;

No it should not.
"private" and "public" are useful blocks. Most form classes need them.
Then people would ask (rightfully) why they must add those specifiers themselves.
Now the automatic form class definition is quite perfect. It has all the needed parts but no stupid comments that must be deleted always.

By tradition it should remain as is

Tradition? Somebody at Borland added those comments at early 1990's without thinking much of it. Why such a tradition should be kept?
Do you want to keep bugs and clumsy UI designs for the same reason, tradition?
No, our goal is to improve things.

or some option (disabled by default) for who wants to remove it.

A patch for the option is welcome. It can be like "Add useless comments after visibility specifiers of a class". Yes, it must be disabled by default.

IMHO declared scopes without any comment or code doesn't sound good.

To me it sounds good. The comments carried absolutely no information and had to be removed manually. Always!

[hnb]

I knew somebody will want them back. So far you are the only one.

... and that is also expressed in newpascal release notes (see "Latest Release" news).

[Thaddy]

I knew somebody will want them back. So far you are the only one.

... and that is also expressed in newpascal release notes (see "Latest Release" news).

I remember a presentation from the Delphi 1 team in early 1995 (may be even very late 1994, but close to but before official release) where features like form/component naming and default comments were demonstrated.
Assuming my NDA is expired I remember part of the demo was - after the initial project1|form1|menu1|memo1|panel1|button1 -  meaningful naming and meaningful comments.
The demonstrator (Chuck?) started expanding the default comments
{ TForm1 is the main form class for the application that contains the controls to implement the main logic} or something like that..
So here you go. That's the background. I was there. I also remember it was intended somehow for navigation, but never used in production.

I still think that it is a useful feature since its intended use. So I am definitely in the don't remove, you just didn't understand what to do with it.
It is consistent in the design of the RAD model used. You can quickly type in a meaningful comment and it saves a few brackets to type. (Ok, two..but)

So Maciej: it is a BAD idea to remove it. It discourages commenting your code....

[Silvio Clécio]

...
A patch for the option is welcome. It can be like "Add useless comments after visibility specifiers of a class". Yes, it must be disabled by default.

Sorry, but an "Add useless comments after visibility specifiers of a class" option and disabled by default make no sense for me.

[JuhaManninen]

Sorry, but an "Add useless comments after visibility specifiers of a class" option and disabled by default make no sense for me.

The whole template should be configurable. Then people can add any comments they like.
I have many things to do and this one does not reach the top of my ToDo list. Maybe somebody else can help with this one.

[Graeme]

The whole template should be configurable. Then people can add any comments they like.

Indeed. Here Lazarus can learn something from MSEide. In MSEide all new units, forms, programs, console apps and your own templates can be defined and edited simply by editing the template files in your defined template directory. MSEide comes with some standard templates to give you an idea of what to do and what macros can be used.

Then again, wasn't there already a Template ide add-on for Lazarus developed some years ago. I think Michael van Canneyt implemented it. But maybe that add-on was only for whole projects, not just for new units, forms etc. Either way, that should be a good starting point.

Yup, I had a quick look and found the add-on I'm talking about:
   <laz>/components/projecttemplates/projtemplates.lpk

[Thaddy]

Sorry, but an "Add useless comments after visibility specifiers of a class" option and disabled by default make no sense for me.

The whole template should be configurable. Then people can add any comments they like.
I have many things to do and this one does not reach the top of my ToDo list. Maybe somebody else can help with this one.

As per my previous reply: there is a reason they are there.
The original meaning was that users  could easily expand the default comment into something more applicable, just like naming the default components with a more applicable name.
Note that can also be demonstrated if you e.g. change the name of the form. The comment changes too even leaving existing comments alone. In Delphi. Provided the component/class/specifier remains the first in place.

[Thaddy]

Please tell us the story.

I tend to delete them but they're generated again and again; I always wandered why and today I dare asking. 

I gave you some piece of history if that is what you mean by a story....  These are actually useful and more powerful than you think - as implemented in Delphi, that is.