On Sun, Aug 06, 2000 at 12:41:50AM +0300, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
> Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Another alternative would be Javadoc / doxygen / ... style comments
> > > (say #@ introduces a comment to be extracted).
> >
> > Yuk. More magic to remember. Me hate.
>
> What magic? The program that does the documentation isn't going to be
The '#@ introduces a comment to be extracted' magic.
> called `perl' (`perl' is the name of the program that exhibits the
> bugs in what you wrote). We already have 3 ways of getting Perl to
> ignore things (comments, =BLAH, and void context; do we really need
> another 3?
"Ignore" is a weird word to be used for documentation :-)
> > I say bring the documentation so close to the thing it documents
> > that they can see each others' nose hair.
>
> Have you looked at the documentation that SWIG auto-generates?
Nope. Can you give a quick summary?
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
