On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]>wrote:
> (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. > I'm OK with repeating the complete set of attribute names once in the documentation, but doing a nice pretty printing of all the spellings seems like a nice win that I hadn't thought of.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
