Lutger napisał: > for reference: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2630 > > Tomasz Sowiński raises the point that each unittest should test the > preceding declaration. I think that's a little inflexible, instead the > following could work: > > - unittests marked with 'ditto' will document the preceding declaration
Well, a unittest making a trial run of the preceding declaration is a convention, natural and widely adopted. That well-trodden path deserves to be acknowledged by the doc generator. Good thing about this idea is that *nothing* changes, no extra gimmicks around unittest blocks, the code's natural flow is intact. > - unittest not marked with ditto will be put in a hardwired macro like > BODY is, so that you have control where it gets put in the generated > documentation. Hm.. would the hardwired macro name be same for all unittests? If so, the notion of implicit ownership by the preceding declaration is necessary so that the names wouldn't mix up. -- Tomek
