On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Doug Franklin <nutdriverle...@comcast.net
> > wrote:
>
>> So, I'm kinda late to the party, since I only started using Fossil a year
>> ago, or so. But, I'd like to throw out a suggestion: something like
>> doxygen or javadoc so that the documentation and source are the same
>> artifact. Knuth tried with tangle/weave, but maybe it's time to revisit
>> the concept?
>>
>
> That doesn't quite apply in this particular case. The C-level library APIs
> are indeed doxygen format directly in the header files, but the scripting
> engine has no native doc format (and there are no plans to
>
> I haven't had a chance to look at your scripting engine, but I would have
thought that the scripting bindings would have been implemented with
"primitives" written in C that map the scripting engine's data model to C's
data model.
Just curious......
PS: An example of what I mean: Years ago, I wrote bindings for a scripting
engine to use a library that had a C API. I wrote a set of primitives like
the following:
int x_Send(Context *cx)
{
int port;
int len;
char buf[1024];
port = e_GetInt(cx, 0); // get int parameter at index 0
len = e_GetString(cx, 1, sizeof(buf), buf); // get string at 1
if (mSend(port, len, buf) == 0)
{
e_ReturnInt(0); // set an int return value
return(e_OK);
}
strcpy(buf, "Send failed."); // error description - should provide
useful details
e_SetError(strlen(buf), buf);
return(e_ERR);
}
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
