Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> May I add comments to getdelim.h? >> >> Hi! There is one in getdelim.c already. Maybe remove it? I'm not >> sure what the policy is on placing function documentation, although I >> usually keep them with the actual function. >> >> Or we could have two function descripts, one in getdelim.c and one in >> getdelim.h, I don't mind. >> >> Perhaps we could discuss this generally, agree on a principle on >> document it? My preference is as above, but it is not a strong one. > > Hi Simon, > > We've had this debate at least once before. > The conclusion was that we agreed to disagree. > > Bruno prefers to put documentation in .h files near the public > declaration, most (all?) others prefer to put it in the .c files (nearer > the actual implementation). One proposal is to keep it in both places, > but that violates the no-duplication tenet, since there is no easy way to > keep them in sync. So far, we're at an impasse. Things owned by Bruno > follow his approach. Most others put public function documentation near > the definition. > > Don't succumb :-)
Ok, then since getdelim.c have documentation with the source code, I think that module fine as is. Bruno, if your docstring improved on the current, incorporating yours in getdelim.c seems like a good idea. As for getline: Bruno, is it ok to apply your docstring to getline.c instead? Your #include fix to getline.c seem good. /Simon
