Hi,
However, the Documentation part would be standard. The only extension that I need is that I want raw string and not XMLElement.
To avoid pointless discussion, I just renamed my Documentation to DocComment (and moreover, now my patch does not hold XmlElement). http://primates.ximian.com/~atsushi/mcs-doc-patches/mcs-doc-20041103.diff
So now we can discuss your patch as a standalone one.
The reason is "/doc" is a standard switch thought about being provided in mcs as well. My patch provides basic infrastructure to it. Only that it does not generate and XML-file or validate or create any XML-nodes.
I cannot understand why your patch could be infrastructure for /doc switch. At least for XML documentation my patch will never use your code block, since it has many more required checks. Or should I use your codebase? Is it better choice?
It makes sense if you mean that your patch is infrastructure for the functionality that is activated with your /mcsdoc-whatever switch.
other mcs hackers don't have to be bothered about whatever they never use.
The patch definitely has a use -- as said above.
Ok, so you think it should be still in mcs codebase, even though it never improves mcs itself, right?
Atsushi Eno _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
