I would be interested in playing with Lee's version of this tool.
DC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Borkman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 19:30
Subject: Re: Documentation System for Cold Fusion
> Hi John,
>
> My intention here is to devise a documentation syntax that will be
> applicable
> to ALL ColdFusion development, not just FuseBox. I personally love
> FuseBox,
> but it has its detractors.
>
> My feeling was that the original FuseDoc header used by Hal was too
> inflexible. I wanted to add other kinds of comment like Version
> Histroy,
> Warning, Contact, Charge Code, etc.
>
> I have therefore devised my proposed syntax (based on JavaDoc) so that
> any
> developer or group can invent their own set of "standard" comment types,
> and
> so the FusionDoc syntax is flexible enough to support this. eg.,
>
> <!---@ Description: This is a nice little template --->
> <!---@ Warning: This template won't work on Solaris --->
> <!---@ Variable: tmp: local, integer, used as a loop index --->
>
> The comments have an @ to identify them as FusionDoc format, then a
> Commenttype, then the CommentContent. That's all.
>
> The CF_FusionDocs parser turns the FusionDoc comments into a Structure
> of
> Arrays of Strings, which can then be used by a display engine (eg my
> SourceBrowser) to do all kinds of tricks.
>
> Hal has suggested that the FusionDoc syntax could allow additional
> formats
> that would have extra meaning, eg,
> <!---% Variable: x. This variable is required, as indicated by the % in
> the
> comment --->
>
> That's not a great example, but is roughly the idea. I would prefer it,
> though, if any extra information was encoded into the CommentContent,
> instead
> of expanding the FusionDoc syntax. Another parser could break down the
> CommentContent once FusionDoc parser is finished. Does that make sense?
> I
> think that would keep the basic syntax both simple and flexible.
>
> Anyway, sorry for the blurb. I agree that it's a pain to contemplate
> switching standards. That's why I have spent some time talking with
> Hal,
> trying to build something that is not a dead-end.
>
> thanks for listening,
> Leeb.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> "John Quarto-vonTivadar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hal,
>
> do you subscribe to the modified form of Fusedox that Lee seems to be
> using?
> Either way works but in order to move the tool forward some of the
> Fusedoc
> should stabilize. I just realized how usefull Lee's tool could be with
> some
> expansions, yet I also have 8-10 complete sites already done in the
> "old"
> (??) Fusedoc style (remember START FUSEDOC and END FUSEDOC )?
>
>
> > Absolutely, Lee. I'll get it up there within the next day or so. I
> think
> > what Lee did is excellent and I hope we can continue to evolve Fusedoc
> to
> > where it does a good job of meeting everyone's needs.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> To Unsubscribe visit
> http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/fusebox
> or
> send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe'
> in the
> body.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
> To Unsubscribe visit
> http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
> or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> 'unsubscribe' in the body.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
