[Vinnl]

If you can't see why a line of code is okay without looking at it, doesn't that mean that it might need a comment or something explaining why it is?

As a corollary, when I ask a question in code review, I usually don't want it to be answered there - I'd prefer it to be answered in the code, if need be using a comment.

[xerophyte12932]

Exactly, because you don't want every future reader of the code to have the same question.

This is why I hate implicit assumptions. If I need some special knowledge or some special assumption that is no where in the immediate vicinity of the code, then maybe your approach to the problem is flawed. Sure it'll work but good luck to future coders working with it

[benji-york]

I mostly agree, with a small twist: sometimes the question is about the code; sometimes it is about the change. The code should be described in the file; the change should be described in the review.

This discussion makes me wonder about more tightly connecting the code with past reviews. What if when reading some code, the user had not only access to the revision history, but also the review history around the code in question? Something along the lines of storing reviews in revision control metadata.