On Jun 9, 2013, at 08:41 , Marvin Humphrey <[email protected]> wrote:
> If other folks are not satisfied with having docs attached to `init`, but I'm
> not satisfied with having them attached to `new`, can we please keep trying to
> find consensus for a little while longer?
OK, then what about writing individual documentation for all the 'new' and
'init' functions?
> I'm not enthusiastic about making exact duplicates of the documentation for
> every constructor, though. :( That's the kind of ugliness they have to accept
> in Java because of signature overloading, but it would be nice if we could
> avoid it.
Generally, I can see three options:
* Repeat all params in the 'new' and 'init' docs
* Let the doc for 'new' refer to the 'init' params
* Let the doc for 'init' refer to the 'new' params
I don't have a problem with duplicating the parameter descriptions. Redundancy
in documentation can be a good thing, IMO. But I'm fine with any solution. We
only need some docs for the C constructors, even if it's simply:
"Constructor. See `init` for a description of the parameters."
Nick
