Am 30.10.2010 14:39, schrieb Emmanuel Pacaud: > Hi Stefan, > >> If you don't put e.g. LsmMathmlRadicalElementClass, gtk-doc naturally expects >> you to document it :) > > Thanks a lot for your answer. I've fixed lasem and get rid of all the > warnings. > > I think the warning message doesn't explain clearly what's wrong, and > doesn't help to fix them. And I don't get the point of such warnings. > The content of foo-undocumented.txt should be enough, no ?
The point of the warning is to say, that something is expected to be documented, but it is not. The warning can probably be improved, but might become a bit longish. I could add it to the FAQ also. > > Also, the sections file was mostly autogenerated. It would be better if > at least the FooClass structures are automatically placed in the > Standard subsection. If you want to use an autogenerated section file, you need to document standard parts right now. I take patches for smarter section.txt generation. Anyway the plan is actually to get rid of the file and just use yet-another keyword in the docs to tell if a symbol should be part of a specific section (as an exception for not in the current section). Stefan > > Thanks again, > > Emmanuel. > _______________________________________________ gtk-doc-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-doc-list
