Richard Quadling wrote:
On 20/02/2008, Stefan Seefeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard Quadling wrote:
Hi.
I am using methodsynopsis and have some parameters which are optional.
But, there is a pair of parameters that have to go together.
e.g. function(param1 [, param2 [, param3, param 4]])
Here params 3 and 4 are to the function, but must both be present.
Either 1, 2 or 4 params. Never 3 params.
I don't think this is currently possible, and I'm not sure adding
support for this is appropriate. The whole set of <synopsis> tags is to
reflect language artifacts as far as syntax is concerned, not to express
semantic constraints on top of that.
Norm indicated he didn't want docbook to incorporate more than a minimal
set of modeling vocabulary. There is a whole lot of other things to be
added if docbook were to expand into that modeling direction. (There is
no 'type synopsis', for example.)
May be an extension 'profile' could be created for such things ? <hint/>
I'm not sure I understand you. Does anyone know of any other APIs
documented using Docbook? I would really like to see how others have
handled this.
(For the record, I was referring to Synopsis:
http://synopsis.fresco.org, which is a tool with similar features to
doxygene. It's about the only one, though that can generate DocBook output.)
As to your actual question: yes, I believe it would be better to list
this as a set of functions with different signatures (an overload set in
C++). For example:
http://boost.org/libs/python/doc/v2/class.html#class_-spec-ctors
This wasn't generated from docbook, but it could easily be.
(One funcsynopsis can hold more than one funcprototype.)
Our current solution is to provide multiple methodsynopsises.
Exactly. I think this is the right thing to do.
Regards,
Stefan
--
...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
