2 Mar
2003
2 Mar
'03
12:55 p.m.
Richard D. Jackson wrote:
> > But if there's only one comment at the top, put them in one section
> > all together:
> >
> > const
> > { Foreground and background color constants }
> > Black = 0;
> > Blue = 1;
> > Green = 2;
> > Cyan = 3;
> > Red = 4;
> > Magenta = 5;
> > Brown = 6;
> > LightGray = 7;
> >
> > Of course, in the indices, there should be entries for each of them.
> Now this is tricky:
> 1) What do you call the node/section for this list of vars/functions
> ect...?
Indeed ...
> 2) You can't just assume that because there is not a comment that it
> belongs to what was above. If you do what happens for those cases where
> I haven't finshed writing the documentation for my code?
Well, user's fault. ;-) They can put in an empty comment if just for
that, hmm?
Of course, any new `const', `type' or `var' block should also break
the node.
> I'm thinking that to solve this we are going to need a group command.
> Something like {@group group name} .... {@end group }
> Where 'group name' would be the name used for the section/node.
Might be a way to go.
> And Yes I agree that every item needs to be placed in the index but what
> happens in the case where you don't want them all in the index. maybe a
> option to the @group command.
Yes, perhaps. Or perhaps a little more general, an indicator that
something (whether in a group or not) should not go to the index, or
not appear in the documentation at all (`{@undocumented}'?). If
expect it to be used very rarely, and still wonder if it's needed at
all (in either case), but it probably can't hurt to have it
available.
Frank
--
Frank Heckenbach, frank@g-n-u.de, http://fjf.gnu.de/, 7977168E
GPC To-Do list, latest features, fixed bugs:
http://www.gnu-pascal.de/todo.html
GPC download signing key: 51FF C1F0 1A77 C6C2 4482 4DDC 117A 9773 7F88 1707