(Removing llvm-admin since this doesn't concern them.) On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Reid Kleckner <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm conflicted about this. The less time I spend editing .td files, the > happier I am. Vim has reasonable support for highlighting and editting rst > out of the box, and I'd rather edit full text in that directly. > > We're pretty good at keeping LLVM's LangRef.rst up to date through code > review. Could we use the same approach with something in > docs/AttributesReference.rst, or do people think it would quickly become > stale?
We could, but I believe this approach is an improvement. For starters, it's a way that we can *require* attributes to have some documentation which is a drastic improvement over the LangRef.rst approach (at least as far as users are concerned). Also, there are things we can automatically generate for attributes which would require duplicated effort if it was done manually (such as what syntaxes are supported, what subjects the attribute can appertain to, etc). The declarative nature of the attribute tablegen lends itself nicely to this sort of automation. Honestly, I think the benefits are significant enough to warrant this approach. ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
