> Would it be possible that the IDEA-generated code for > implementing an interface also contain javadoc with > the @see tag.
I don't see the point in this. Javadoc automatically "inherits" the interface documentation for you (I don't know if IDEAs Javadoc quick view does, though), and IDEA gives you some of that, too. To the contrary, there are other problems, e.g. some compilers complaining about @deprecated in inherited interfaces that were not replicated in the implementing class (java.sql.* interfaces are good examples). Javadoc consistency checking is still an unsolved but *really* important problem to me. For example, iDoc does something for you, but it is too inflexible to be used "as is". I had to add several extensions, e.g. ignoring "missing documentation" messages for private methods or fields. There is some IDE support (including IDEA), but it doesn't go too far. For example, when you add/remove parameters to/from a method, why not have the refactoring support ask you to add/remove documentation, too? Adds some rigor, yes, but really increases consistency! HW -- Phone: +41 (43) 285 27 28 Fax: +41 (43) 282 27 28 Mobile: +41 (76) 329 03 14 _______________________________________________ Eap-features mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-features
