+1 also "Update Javadoc" if javadoc is present and the method signature doesn't matches it
"Igor Karpov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I think all ideas seem faily reasonable and worth implementing. Different > people may like different approaches. > My opinion is based on my experience, so that a user looks at the current > method (remembering the context and what exactly what this method does), and > think "Well, this had better to be documented".. > The cursor is positioned somewhere inside of the method, and it's annoying to > carefully position it (mouse, also).. The intention is "well, I want to javadoc > it" and the reasonable way of doing this is "alt+insert javadoc". > I like the "todo" approach also, but it's differerent - more like a reminder, > and the cursor must be positioned to the javadoc body anyway. > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Jacques Morel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 00:22:53 -0500 > Subject: Re: javadoc comments generating > > > > > Paul, > > Why being so aggressive? Can't we have a calm and respectful debate here? Do > > you want to turn into another Hani? I am not sure I can bear more than one > > ;-) > > > > My initial post was made because like others, I am concerned that features I > > do not think add any value, could be implemented. > > However I think you are making a reasonable case here to make javadoc > > writing easier. I am still not entirely sure how to do it best but your > > suggestion do make it easier. > > > > However I would rather fix the positioning pre-requisite of javadoc > > generation. > > Why not having, like Igor Karpov proposed, an action to generate javadoc of > > the current member. It could be invoked from within the body through a > > shortcut (not Alt-Insert though since it provide access to only class level > > actions) or from the structure view by selecting the to-be-documented > > member(s) and invoking "Generate member javadoc" from the context menu. > > Multi-selection would allow generation of the whole file. > > > > I like your idea to have TODO markers inserted BTW when you generate more > > than one member at once. > > > > Jacques > > > > > > "Paul Bradshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > ah47v6$5f2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:ah47v6$5f2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Did you read my message at all? It's not just "/**", it's "position > > cursor, > > > [enter][up-arrow]/**[Enter], type stuff, then find next method. All I'm > > > saying is that a global "add javadoc template with a todo" woudl make it > > so > > > much easier -- click blue bar, add javadoc, click blue bar, add javadoc... > > I > > > don't understand the hatred of something so simple and obvious (and > > > something you don't have to use anyway, and which wouldn't add any huge > > > burden to IDEA if you didn't use it). I'd also love it if it did things > > > like examine existing javadoc, and if a parameter was missing, add it > > (with > > > a TODO), and if a parameter was obsolete, delete it. I'm just looking for > > > ways of making the managing of javadoc simpler by automating some of the > > > drugery. Isn't that what IDEA is supposed to be about? > > > > > > > > > "Thomas Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > Completely agree with Scott's words. > > > > > > > > Paul, since you need to take a look at the method itself to write the > > > > JavaDoc's content, what's the problem with /**? > > > > Or do you just write useless space-wasters like: > > > > > > > > /** > > > > * @param forAllUsers New value of property forAllUsers. > > > > */ > > > > public void setForAllUsers(boolean forAllUsers) { > > > > this.forAllUsers = forAllUsers; > > > > } > > > > > > > > or the killer-one: > > > > > > > > /** Setter for property forAllUsers. > > > > * @param forAllUsers New value of property forAllUsers. > > > > */ > > > > public void setForAllUsers(boolean forAllUsers) { > > > > this.forAllUsers = forAllUsers; > > > > } > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:19:00 -0500, "Scott Sirovy" > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I add javadoc when it helps, not just to add size to my .java files. > > > > > > > > > > The functionality you mention could be a plugin (that you can install > > > and I > > > > > don't have to) or an external tool (that you configure and I do not). > > > > > > > > > > Take a look at http://www.doclet.com and search for either DocWiz or > > > > > CommentMaster. Feel free to configure an external tool for them. > > This > > > > > isn't something JetBrains should waste their time duplicating. > > > > > > > > > > -sms > > > > > > > > > > "Paul Bradshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > > > > ah1kd7$mh4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:ah1kd7$mh4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > > Well, it's more than just three characters. I have to go to the > > > method > > > > > > name, press enter to "open up" a blank line in which to type the > > > > > /**[ENTER], > > > > > > and then up arrow back up to the blank line. A grand total of six > > > > > > keystrokes NOT including the positioning. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd LOVE to see an "auto generate javadoc stubs" function that would > > > plug > > > > > in > > > > > > a TODO comment at the top of each one. Then I could generate all > > the > > > > > > javadoc stubs for a class at once, and then immediately navigate to > > > each > > > > > one > > > > > > by clicking on the blue to-do bars. Talk about a time and energy > > > saver... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jacques Morel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > > > > > agv710$i87$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:agv710$i87$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > > > I humbly disagree. What would you gain by generating text that > > would > > > > > have > > > > > > > being automatically inferred by the javadoc generator? The batch > > > > > > generation > > > > > > > won't change how your html javadoc looks like, do we agree? So why > > > don't > > > > > > you > > > > > > > defer writing the javadoc shell of a member until you want to > > write > > > some > > > > > > > real javadoc. At that point typing /** is not too much I think. It > > > is > > > > > just > > > > > > 3 > > > > > > > characters. In addition you will get the following benefits: > > > > > > > 1) a guaranteed up-to-date javadoc of your member > > > > > > > 2) less comment junk that makes your code more readable > > > > > > > I think the previous benefits easily offset the burden of typing 3 > > > > > > > characters for each members don't you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or do I miss something? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jacques > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Eap-features mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.jetbrains.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-features > > > > > ------------------------------------ > Mail.Ru - ������, ��������, �������! > ------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Eap-features mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.jetbrains.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-features
