On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:14 AM, Stefan Kost <enso...@hora-obscura.de> wrote: > David Nečas schrieb: >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:23:14AM +0100, David Nečas wrote: >> >>> Should the parser really consume this? >>> >>> /** >>> * Adds a subscription to be monitored. >>> */ >>> >>> The first line is not an identifier followed by a colon, so it cannot be >>> a symbol documentation. Or is such a vague matching necessary for some >>> legacy documentation? >>> >> >> I mean something like this (I would even remove the warning about >> comments where we cannot find a symbol because if there is no symbol the >> comment is not intended for our consumption). >> >> Index: gtkdoc-mkdb.in >> =================================================================== >> --- gtkdoc-mkdb.in (revision 665) >> +++ gtkdoc-mkdb.in (working copy) >> @@ -3397,7 +3397,7 @@ >> $symbol = $1; >> #print "SECTION DOCS found in source for : '$symbol'\n"; >> $ignore_broken_returns = 1; >> - } elsif (m%^\s*([\w:-]*\w)\s*:?%) { >> + } elsif (m%^\s*([\w:-]*\w)\s*:?\s*$%) { >> $symbol = $1; >> #print "SYMBOL DOCS found in source for : '$symbol'\n"; >> } >> >> > Matthias, how does this sound. We take anything that is one word > followed by a ':' or not as a symbol and I remove the warning about > "Symbol name not found at the start of the comment block.". > We should probably also only look for the symbol name before anything else. > > Or would yo like to keep it as it is and turning the /** into /* comments?
Having that warning sounds good. I also regularly remove the extra * from stuff thats not supposed to be a doc comment, but thats an uphill battle and new ones keep crawling in... _______________________________________________ gtk-doc-list mailing list gtk-doc-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-doc-list