On 24/07/2015 10:56 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
Am 24.07.2015 14:23, schrieb Paul King:
[...]
If you replace latest with next in the url, you'll see the same problem
isn't there. We had briefly the header comment accidentally having /**
at the beginning instead of /*.
but should that really matter? They are not in the right place to count as
javadoc for the class. Is that a... what was it again? qdoc? A bug in qdoc?
qdox is used in docgenerator. Groovydoc uses the Java and Groovy grammars for
parsing Java and Groovy files respectively but since neither grammar currently
contains the comments Groovydoc uses a slightly fragile comment scrapping
approach to pull out the class comments, method comments, etc. We could invest
more time in to making the comment scrapping less fragile but we've been
thinking it preferable to invest time into getting onto the Antlr 4 grammar and
then adding in comment support (perhaps leveraging the work done in the Eclipse
compiler plugin).
Also, are we considering creating package-info.html /
package-info.java files?
We have some package.html files but not many package-info.groovy (or
Java) files.
but aren't the package-info.html files ignored too? I mean their content is
supposed to how up on
http://docs.groovy-lang.org/latest/html/gapi/groovy/lang/package-summary.html
as well, or not? groovy/lang has a package-info.html file.
For whatever reason, it looks like the subproject package.html files are being
processed and the ones from core are being missed.
Cheers, Paul.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
