On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:39:18 -0500, David Abrahams wrote > "Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:30:06 -0500, David Abrahams wrote > >> > In the case of :bar:, if we didn't have the discussion context I'm > >> > not sure it would be obvious what it meant. > >> > >> If you weren't writing automated documentation you would write "The > >> bar parameter" or "Params:" ? > > > > I'd probably write something like: > > // bar -- description here > > // foo -- description here > > > > But that's a really high bar for the documentation parser. > > ?? Why? I could write it in about 10 minutes.
I can think of a few small complications. Like dealing with multi-line descriptions, needing to sort these out from the other commentary, etc. Although it just occured to me that something like this: // Parameters: // bar -- description here // foo -- description here would simplify things and also make it easy for the human to local the parameter descriptions. You still need to recognize the parameter names and compare them to the function signature if you are going to error check. Jeff ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
