Re: continuing documentation

[Maurizio Boriani]

On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 12:10:26PM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> I don't think this is insurmountable.  We could simply avoid the text
> comparison for such functions, assuming that their text will be
> completely different from the source.  For some functions, we can
> still do the right thing, because the comment style is:
> 
> /* SHARED-COMMENT */
> PROTOTYPE-1;
> PROTOTYPE-2;
> 
> and that becomes:
> 
> @deftypefun PROTOTYPE-1
> @deftypefunx PROTOTYPE-1
> SHARED-COMMENT
> @end deftypefun
> 
> Agreed.  I think the only thing that makes us still win is the fact
> that Hurd sources follow pretty clear conventions, which we can rely
> on to give more information than typical free-form code.  We don't
> need to make something completely generic, only something that is
> useful for this project and others similar to it.
> 
> Cool.  I look forward to seeing what you have, so I can start working,
> too. :)
> 

This kind of comment is very cool! But I think could be a good thing also make 
them for structs or global vars and the scripts could reletions them and could 
also design a simple kind diagram. What do you think? Could be this a good idea?

bye all

-- 
Maurizio Boriani -- Debian developer
http://www.debian.org/%7Ebaux/
PGP key: 0xCC0FBF8F
fingerprint => E429 A37C 5259 763C 9DEE  FC8B 5D61 C796 CC0F BF8F <= fingerprint

pgplbOsn2OJEC.pgp
Description: PGP signature