On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 02:37:46 +1300, Rikki Cattermole wrote: > On 16/03/2015 2:33 a.m., ketmar wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 02:19:08 +1300, Rikki Cattermole wrote: >> >>> On 16/03/2015 2:16 a.m., ketmar wrote: >>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:32:25 +1300, Rikki Cattermole wrote: >>>> >>>>> This might be a bit of a out of scope, but auto generating of DDOC >>>>> comments for symbols would be nice. Basically to enforce before e.g. >>>>> committing that everything has been explained. >>>> >>>> this never helps. what sense of having "documentation" like "enum >>>> SomeType" for `enum SomeType`? >>> >>> Ok enums probably wouldn't be. I'm more thinking of >>> struct/classes/unions functions/methods properties and global >>> variables. >>> Maybe even head of module. >> >> but that will be the same. formater has no AI, so it can't write >> documentation. ;-) and copy-pasted definitions is not a documentation >> at all. i've seen alot of doxygen examples of that, and it doesn't help >> a little, i have to dig into sources anyway. either author did proper >> documenting, or leave it as is, as generating stubs will not help. > > Yeah I know. Its kinda why I said it could be out of scope. After all, > this is the kind of thing you expect of IDE's. But it also could have > pretty good fit here as well. To try and push best practice > documentation wise.
on the other side, i can see a sense in generating "stubs" for functions and templates, as it's somewhat boring to copypaste argument names. not that it's a big deal, but... ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
