On Sat, 15 May 2010 14:00:47 +0200 (CEST) mar...@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) wrote:
> In our previous episode, Mattias Gaertner said: > > Yes. > > I think implementation needs good comments. The local types and > > variables don't need fpdoc docs, do they? > > If someone wants to use fpdoc for implementation, maybe it should > > be made optional? > > Mattias, what did you use for testing? makeskel/fpdoc? No. I wrote a small program to parse every fcl unit. Maybe I find today some time to create a patch to make fpdoc parse only to implementation. > I've searched for a test that simply dumped the parsetree (e.g. to check if > ^g is really transformed to something like a char/string literal), but > haven't found anything. AFAIR ^g is/was not supported, as this is a context sensitive token. Two tokens in types, one in the others. The codetools do not support it too. Mattias _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
