On 26 August 2010 20:35, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 08:16:41PM +0200, Anders Logg wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 08:09:56PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: >> > On 26 August 2010 19:51, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 07:42:35PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: >> > >> On 26 August 2010 18:22, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I've thought some more on how to organize/synchronize the FEniCS >> > >> > documentation (in fenics-doc) with the documentation we have in the >> > >> > code. >> > >> > >> > >> > I think it is important that >> > >> > >> > >> > (1) the strings we have in the code are the same as those that appear >> > >> > on in the HTML documentation (which we write in Sphinx). >> > >> > >> > >> > (2) the strings we have in the code are short (so they don't clutter >> > >> > up the code) >> > >> >> > >> I disagree. The whole idea of the documentation effort was to document >> > >> in one place >> > >> (using carefully handwritten and elaborate explanations including >> > >> examples and links to demos etc.) and code in another. >> > >> The comments in the code should be very short and precise such that >> > >> together with the class/function definition and type info the >> > >> developer can complete the task without looking elsewhere. These kind >> > >> of comments, I expect, will look weird when put next to an elaborate >> > >> explanation on how the class/function works including all the bells >> > >> and whistles. >> > >> >> > >> > If we look at these two, it seems that (1) implies that we should >> > >> > write the documentation as part of the code and then extract it using >> > >> > some tool. >> > >> > >> > >> > But (2) prevents that since we don't want to constrain the >> > >> > documentation for all functions to be very short. >> > >> > >> > >> > How about the following solution. >> > >> > >> > >> > * Write short docstrings in the code >> > >> > >> > >> > * Auto-generate all the .rst input files for the Programmer's >> > >> > Reference using a simple Python script that looks for '///' >> > >> > >> > >> > * The script looks at the code to generate the signature of the >> > >> > function and the text that comes immediately after. >> > >> >> > >> This might be possible for a simple >> > >> 'change-order-of-comment-and-function' script where you manipulate the >> > >> output manually afterwards, but if you want to run this more than once >> > >> you will have to pick up nested class/struct definitions templates and >> > >> all kinds of crap. >> > >> I tried to write a parser like this to check if all classes and >> > >> functions were documented, but gave up and let Doxygen do the dirty >> > >> work. (But do we want to do this just to generate 20 characters of >> > >> docstring automatically?) >> > >> >> > >> > But it also looks in a hand-written .rst file that contains any >> > >> > additional stuff we want to put below. >> > >> > >> > >> > So for the code example in the style manual, the things that get >> > >> > picked up from the code are >> > >> > >> > >> > // Return the cell which is closest to the given point >> > >> > uint closest_cell(const Point & point) const >> > >> > >> > >> > which gets converted to >> > >> > >> > >> > .. cpp:function:: uint closest_cell(const Point & point) const >> > >> > >> > >> > Return the cell which is closest to the given point >> > >> > >> > >> > The script also looks in a file for "closest_cell" below which we have >> > >> > written all the *Arguments* stuff that will be thrown in below. >> > >> > >> > >> > Will that work? >> > >> >> > >> Yes, but the work flow is getting complex, and you'll need to know >> > >> what you get from the source code so you don't repeat yourself. >> > >> It is much easier to have the documentation in one place. >> > >> >> > >> > Another solution would be to just write everything as part of the >> > >> > code, and just add some settings to our editors that will fold the >> > >> > extra stuff away so we don't need to see it. Maybe that is the most >> > >> > robust solution? >> > >> >> > >> The general consensus the last time this issue came up was not to >> > >> clutter the code with documentation markup. >> > >> >> > >> Kristian >> > > >> > > I agree it's good to have the documentation in one place, but it would >> > > be good if we found a way to keep it in sync. Helper scripts can do >> > > some of that work, but we probably won't be able to pick up things >> > > like having >> > > >> > > "Compute the number of neighbors" >> > > >> > > in one place and >> > > >> > > "Return the number of neighbors" >> > > >> > > in other places. Things like this will creep in over time. It might >> > > not be a big issue but I find it a bit annoying. >> > >> > I see. A simpler approach, rather than generating docstrings would be >> > to have a script that >> > simply looks for '///' comments in dolfin/mesh/Mesh.h and check if the >> > EXACT same strings are present in >> > programmers-reference/cpp/mesh/Mesh.rst, if not crash test and let >> > user figure out manually why it failed and which comment/docstring >> > should be changed. >> > This won't be completely bulletproof, but much much simpler than >> > parsing a C++ library. >> >> Yes, that might be a good solution. >> >> > I currently check if the docstrings of the documentation for the >> > Python interface is equal to the docstrings of the DOLFIN module after >> > import so that sort of works in the same way, only in this case I know >> > that the docstring I check belongs to function 'bar' of class 'foo'. >> > >> > Then we use the stub-generator that you have know to give us the first >> > set of *.rst files and then add the '///' comments check to the >> > verify_cpp_documentation.py script. >> >> It's almost there now, I just need to do some polishing. >> >> Sphinx is currently crashing when it generates the documentation from >> the .rst files I generate. >> >> Exception occurred: >> File "/usr/lib/pymodules/python2.6/docutils/nodes.py", line 1898, in >> dupname >> node['names'].remove(name) >> ValueError: list.remove(x): x not in list >> >> Any ideas what this might be? > > Looks like this happens when there are multiple functions with the > same signature.
Very likely, and that's probably because you need to extract 'const' information too, and that's just the tip of the iceberg if we proceed down this road.... Kristian > -- > Anders > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
