I've found first-class documentation to be very useful in Python, and much more reliable than javadoc-like things.
I'd much rather have an attribute that is clearly linked to the function rather than a comment floating about. On 19 October 2012 07:43, John Mija <[email protected]> wrote: > Rust has attributes[1] at function-level but (1) the compilation could > be faster if they were at file-level, and (2) the project would be more > homogeneous and clean. > > + Instead of to have the attribute "#[test]" for a function, those tests > functions could be into a file with the name finished in "_test" > (foo_test.rs) indicating that there are unit tests. On this case, we > would not need an attribute. > > + Instead of to have conditionally-compiled modules at function level, > that code could be into a file finished in the system name > (foo_linux.rs), and/or use attributes at file level. See how Go solved > this problem, in Build constraints[2]. > > + Instead of to have an attribute for the documentation, the parser > could get the comment on top of the function to get its documentation. > > Now: > > // A documentation attribute > #[doc = "Add two numbers together."] > fn add(x: int, y: int) { x + y } > > Proposal: > > // add adds two numbers together." > fn add(x: int, y: int) { x + y } > > > [1]: http://dl.rust-lang.org/doc/0.4/rust.html#attributes > [2]: http://golang.org/pkg/go/build/ > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
