Some other cases, not covered, even in JSDoc nor TS There is no way to describe the result, to the IDE's intellisense, for those ES5/ES2015 features: `Object.create(prototype, descriptors)` https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/blob/master/lib/lib.es5.d.ts#L192 `Object.assign(obj, ...mixins)` https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/blob/master/lib/lib.es2015.core.d.ts#L313
I really love JS, but if there is no way to help the IDE to understand complex things, it's like to code with a Notepad.exe Any TC feelings about that, please? Michaël Rouges - https://github.com/Lcfvs - @Lcfvs Le dim. 18 oct. 2020 à 05:27, #!/JoePea <j...@trusktr.io> a écrit : > That would be interesting indeed. Encouraging documentation is great I > think. > #!/JoePea > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 3:38 AM Michaël Rouges <michael.rou...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Yeah, I prefer the JSDoc solution too for the same reasons... but JSDoc > is really slow to evolve, > > always several years behind the standard, a lot of solutions to describe > our code are more relevant > > to **tricks**, generally found on the JSDoc issues, than something > formal. > > > > The coverage isn't the same... really, I'm dreaming about a standard > annotation for each ES feature, > > covering all the usages. **when that feature is released**. > > > > > > Michaël Rouges - https://github.com/Lcfvs - @Lcfvs > > > > > > Le sam. 17 oct. 2020 à 03:29, #!/JoePea <j...@trusktr.io> a écrit : > >> > >> Would official syntax be worth it (JSDoc being officially standardized)? > >> > >> Maybe it's a matter of time: Perhaps now that JSDoc is useful for type > >> checking (thanks to TypeScript and its ability to type check plain > >> JavaScript that is annotated with JSDoc) it may be closer to reality. > >> > >> I prefer JSDoc type annotation in plain .js files over writing .ts > >> files, because it means I can write type-checked code that has great > >> intellisense in modern editors like VS Code, without needing any build > >> steps and with end users being able to consume those source files > >> directly in any way they want (possibly also without build tools). > >> However, JSDoc can not currently do everything that regular TypeScript > >> syntax can do (there's some open issues regarding that in the > >> TypeScript repo). > >> > >> #!/JoePea > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:53 AM kai zhu <kaizhu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Sorry but my question isn't about providing a tool to generate our > documentations but to have a standard syntax to describe our code > (signatures). ;) > >> > > >> > not standard-practice, but my style is to have documentation of > functions inside the function (rather than above it). > >> > simplifies doc-generation by calling function's `.toString()` (rather > than having to parse the parse the entire script): > >> > > >> > ```js > >> > let html; > >> > let local; > >> > local = {}; > >> > local.foo1 = function (aa, bb) { > >> > /* > >> > * this function will blah blah blah > >> > */ > >> > return aa + bb; > >> > }; > >> > local.foo2 = function (cc, dd) { > >> > /* > >> > * this function will yada yada yada > >> > */ > >> > return cc + dd; > >> > }; > >> > > >> > // auto-generate doc for functions in namespace <local> > >> > html = "<html>\n\n"; > >> > Object.entries(local).sort().forEach(function ([ > >> > name, obj > >> > ]) { > >> > if (typeof obj === "function") { > >> > obj.toString().replace(( > >> > > /function\b.*?(\([\S\s]*?\))\s*?\{\n?(\s*?\/\*[\S\s]*?\*\/)/ > >> > ), function (ignore, signature, comment) { > >> > html += "<h1>function " + name + " " + signature.trim() + > "</h1>\n"; > >> > html += "<pre>\n" + comment + "\n</pre>\n"; > >> > html += "\n"; > >> > }); > >> > } > >> > }); > >> > html += "</html>\n"; > >> > console.log(html); > >> > ``` > >> > > >> > output > >> > ```html > >> > <html> > >> > > >> > <h1>function foo1 (aa, bb)</h1> > >> > <pre> > >> > /* > >> > * this function will blah blah blah > >> > */ > >> > </pre> > >> > > >> > <h1>function foo2 (cc, dd)</h1> > >> > <pre> > >> > /* > >> > * this function will yada yada yada > >> > */ > >> > </pre> > >> > > >> > </html> > >> > ``` > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 5:25 AM Michaël Rouges < > michael.rou...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Sorry but my question isn't about providing a tool to generate our > documentations but to have a standard syntax to describe our code > (signatures). ;) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Michaël Rouges - https://github.com/Lcfvs - @Lcfvs > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Le mar. 13 oct. 2020 à 01:29, Jordan Harband <ljh...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > >> >>> > >> >>> Hopefully (imo) people are hand-writing more docs now, rather than > relying on autogenerated prose. > >> >>> > >> >>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 1:23 PM #!/JoePea <j...@trusktr.io> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Why not? People are generating less docs now? That doesn't sound > good! > >> >>>> > >> >>>> #!/JoePea > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 4:15 PM Isiah Meadows < > cont...@isiahmeadows.com> wrote: > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > JSDoc is not dead (far from it), people just don't frequently use > >> >>>> > automated docs generation tooling in the JS community. Most the > actual > >> >>>> > use JSDoc provides nowadays is editor autocomplete hints and > >> >>>> > integrating with TypeScript (in cases where changing the > extension > >> >>>> > isn't possible for whatever reason), so while it's still useful, > it's > >> >>>> > just not used in the same places it was used previously. > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > ----- > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > Isiah Meadows > >> >>>> > cont...@isiahmeadows.com > >> >>>> > www.isiahmeadows.com > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 6:39 PM Michaël Rouges < > michael.rou...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > Hi all, > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > Since JSDoc seems cerebrally dead, why the TC39 doesn't make a > real documentation standard, evolving with the langage? > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > Actually, a part of the JS community are exiling to TS to > type anything and the rest are just despited by the very outdated version > of JSDoc but don't want to add TS to their stack. > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > IMHO, it's really urgent to have something formal to solve > that missing point of my favorite language. > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > What would it take to make this dream come true, please? > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > Michaël Rouges - https://github.com/Lcfvs - @Lcfvs > >> >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > >> >>>> > > es-discuss mailing list > >> >>>> > > es-discuss@mozilla.org > >> >>>> > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >> >>>> > _______________________________________________ > >> >>>> > es-discuss mailing list > >> >>>> > es-discuss@mozilla.org > >> >>>> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >> >>>> _______________________________________________ > >> >>>> es-discuss mailing list > >> >>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org > >> >>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> es-discuss mailing list > >> >> es-discuss@mozilla.org > >> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > es-discuss mailing list > >> > es-discuss@mozilla.org > >> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
