> > > Is this a constraint we want to have or need > > I think so. I think it's helpful to say "This comment is special." > I disagree.
OK, I concede. I tried to think of a good reason why I would have a comment in the .proto but NOT want to have it in the generated code - and I couldn't really think of one (not a good one anyway). > Going with <pre></pre>, maybe with the heuristics if there are no > HTML-formattings found in the comment, sounds like a good initial > solution to me. I'm not thrilled with the idea of precluding HTML formattings in the comments, because they are useful. An example already presented was for formatting lists. Some kind of very simple wiki-like approach sounds interesting. I just worry that would make things difficult for you - the guys who actually write protoc - and contrbute to bloat. >I don't see much gain in having to revisit all my existing protocol >buffer files to add the information that a comment is special ;) If I >commented a field, Yes. That is a very solid point. There's another case we haven't talked about yet, and that is Enums, though they aren't all that different than fields. It would be nice to allow documentation on the Enum itself, as well as on its values. See any problems/complications in that? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
