Glad to see this discussion. Thank you all -- especially to Jason for the link.
On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:34:24 AM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > To clarify – I meant that I like the style of GoDoc, not the fact that you > run the tool as a separate pass. That doesn't strike me as completely out > of the question, but wouldn't be optimal. > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:32 AM, John Myles White <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> No, I was talking about what I understood to be a design principle of >> GoDoc: doc generation and parsing occurs at doc-gen time, not at run-time. >> >> Yes, you would have to make comments non-ignorable to get this to work. >> >> — John >> >> On Aug 26, 2014, at 12:44 AM, Job van der Zwan <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 00:04:41 UTC+2, John Myles White wrote: >>> >>> The issue is that you want to have all code documentation show up in >>> REPL. In the GoDoc approach, this might require an explicit "build" step -- >>> which is a non-trivial cost in usability. >>> >>> -- John >>> >> >> I assume you talking about GoDoc as a tool? >> >> In case you are referring to comments as the source of documentation >> instead of docstrings: I assume comments are now simply discarded during >> compilation, making it impossible to use them for documentation, but if >> that could be changed they should be just as valid as the format for >> documentation, right? >> >> >> >
