I have tried randomly poking at the grammar file, and have not been able to make it work. Still working on getting my environment set up properly in windows. I have no experience with bison to help me. If it is too difficult to distinguish a program level doc from a doc on the first element, perhaps an extended syntax could be used to indicate a program level doc. Perhaps "/%% Foo %/" or "/*** Foo */" could work. I'll keep playing with it today.
-----Original Message----- From: Jens Geyer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 13 January 2014 3:10 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Is full program doctext still allowed? Hi Craig, AFAIK it is not implemented yet. I never tried it myself, and never took the time to think through the arguments given there. But I agree it could be helpful occasinally. Can't tell how much of effort is needed. Maybe you want to find out :-) ? JensG -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Craig Peterson Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 10:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Is full program doctext still allowed? I am trying to use the html generator to generate documentation for my thrift api. It would be really useful to provide a blob of text to go at the top to explain the entire program. I can't seem to get the compiler to recognize doctext for the entire program. After reading the source of thrifty.yy, I am not sure if it is working as intended, or if my syntax is off. There are comments debating the merits of allowing fill-program doctext, as well as code that sets the doc on the root program, as well as syntactic elements called DestroyDocText and similar things. It has all left me very confused. Is there a way to do full program docs or not?
