Index: TODO
===================================================================
diff -u -re6d201c8c8e23c734472b1f4b48c56187ebddf5a -r8309bbb9459e29aa20e673d9f40d190522c1fff1
--- TODO	(.../TODO)	(revision e6d201c8c8e23c734472b1f4b48c56187ebddf5a)
+++ TODO	(.../TODO)	(revision 8309bbb9459e29aa20e673d9f40d190522c1fff1)
@@ -4996,15 +4996,14 @@
   try/catch, and there are no regression tests for xotcl and nx,
   and we could not find any script that uses this
 
+nsf.c:
+- de-spaghetti precedence computations for multiple inheritance and
+  improve documentation
+- get rid of // comments
+
 ========================================================================
 TODO:
 
-- Revisit nsf::*::assertion interface? Why does nsf::method::assertion
-  allow for setting invariants. One would rather expect a
-  ::nsf::object|class::assertion or the like?
-
-- remove / rephrase "//"-comments
-
 - check deactivated tests in tests/serialize.test
   C(One), C(IgnoreAll), C(None2)
   and xlloc fix
@@ -5271,6 +5270,20 @@
       about parameter definitions. They don't check
       anything by design.
 
+  * RFE Revisit nsf::*::assertion interface? Why does nsf::method::assertion
+    allow for setting invariants. One would rather expect a
+    ::nsf::object|class::assertion or the like?
+
+       The reason for the current naming is simply that assertions
+       are only implemented for scripted methods.
+         * pre/post conditions are just checked for scripted methods,
+           since only these have stack frames, which are necessary
+           to access self or the resolver variables.
+         * invariants are only checkable during scripted methods,
+           there is no way to intercept c-based functions.
+           Checking these before/after c-implemented functions
+           should be possible though.
+
   * add maybe "::nsf::object::property /obj/ volatile 0|1" to alter 
     volatile state.