Richard Broersma wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
Oh. Now that's an interesting perspective ... you're suggesting that we
take the comments and apply them as COMMENTS on the specific pg_settings?
On a side note regarding comments, I'd like to make a request for a
more comprehensive commenting mechanism. The first though that comes
to my mind would allow for comments to be stored and annotated using
XML or sgml. It'd be nice to be able to generate user documentation
from selected comments taken from application derived database
objects.
I don't know, maybe this is already possible.
When you start going there, you have new issues to consider. (For the record I
also prefer plain text for comments.)
I should point out that the group making the Perl 6 language has already been
looking into such matters extensively of essentially unifying code comments and
code documentation into a common metadata both accessible in the source code and
programmatically at runtime.
I think this approach goes beyond comments as we normally know them, which I
just think of plain text strings associated with some code element.
But if you want to pursue bringing documentation into this, I suggest looking at
what Perl 6, and other languages, have done.
While some of the results of the Perl 6 discussion may have just been in the
forums, these urls at least are related to it:
- http://perlcabal.org/syn/S02.html#Whitespace_and_Comments
- http://github.com/perl6/specs/raw/master/S26-documentation.pod for
I'm not proposing adopting their syntax, but some features or design may be
useful to learn from.
I also want to point out that the FoxPro language constitutes some prior art
about including comments as data fields in their runtime-accessible objects.
-- Darren Duncan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
