Hello, On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 15:59, Jaroslaw Kowalski wrote: > Today the only way to do it is to parse Type/TypeSignature/@Value for > "class", "interface", "struct". Shouldn't there be a more structural way to > do it? An attribute, perhaps: Type/TypeSignature/@TypeKind with values like > "Class", "Structure", "Interface", "Enumeration", ... would do it very well. > > Was it omitted on purpose?
This Monodoc XML format is based upon the XML documentation made available by ECMA. A 'TypeKind' element is not available because the existing ECMA docs don't have them either. The format used by the Gtk# documentation project is a slightly altered format that is based on the ECMA format. We added a RefType attribute to parameters to help distinguish between ref and out parameters. Since the current Gtk# monodoc browser is able to do distinguish between the different kinds of Types, I don't think it's worthwhile to alter the XML file once more. To find out how monodoc figures this out, see ecma-provider.cs ( I think). > BTW. What's the reason for having lots of [EMAIL PROTECTED]'C#'] > all over the files? Signatures for other languages aren't provided. Why? CLI > is all about multiple languages... In the ECMA documentation, IL signatures are also available. I think that's the reason why they have a Language attribute to distinguish between the two. Duncan. _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
