Thread: [Jsdoc-user] A few questions
Status: Inactive
Brought to you by:
mmathews
From: Max d'A. <ma...@da...> - 2005-09-16 21:33:02
|
Hello, I've just started trying out JSDoc and have a few questions if anyone can answer them. 1. There appears to be a minor bug if you include a single quote (apostrophe) in inline comments using a double slash. E.g. a line such as; myFunction(); //This is today's test code. When I look at the "File" page the source code highlighting breaks at the single quote. (I think it starts again if you hit another single quote in another inline comment.) 2. Are the * characters optional at the start of lines within the special comment blocks? 3. I seem to be having problems with Mozilla style getters and setters not being documented. E.g. Element.prototype.__defineGetter__( "getSomething", function() { var temp = this.aproperty; return temp; } ); I've tried several combinations of @ commands without success. Is this a type of javascript expression that is too complicated to be picked up? Many thanks for any answers. Regards Max I'm using the latest version of JSDoc (1.9.5.6) on a Windows Me platform if that makes any difference. |
From: Gabriel R. <gab...@gm...> - 2005-09-17 06:41:02
|
> 1. There appears to be a minor bug if you include a single quote > (apostrophe) in inline comments using a double slash. > E.g. a line such as; > myFunction(); //This is today's test code. > > When I look at the "File" page the source code highlighting breaks at > the single quote. (I think it starts again if you hit another single > quote in another inline comment.) > I've just noticed a bug that seems to occur when inline comments are included on the same line as code. Could you either send me (or the list) a complete (but preferably small) JavaScript source file that demonstraes this? I'll plan to release a fixed version this weekend. > > 2. Are the * characters optional at the start of lines within the > special comment blocks? Yes, they are. > > 3. I seem to be having problems with Mozilla style getters and setters > not being documented. > > E.g. > > Element.prototype.__defineGetter__( > "getSomething", > function() > { > var temp = this.aproperty; > return temp; > } > ); > This is *supposed* to work, but having just checked it as well, I've seen that it doesn't work anymore. I'll have this fixed as well in the release this weekend. Thanks for pointing these bugs out! Regards, Gabriel |
From: Gabriel R. <gab...@gm...> - 2005-09-17 19:12:11
|
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 10:35:28PM +0100, Max d'Ayala wrote: > Hello, I've just started trying out JSDoc and have a few questions if > anyone can answer them. > > 1. There appears to be a minor bug if you include a single quote > (apostrophe) in inline comments using a double slash. > E.g. a line such as; > myFunction(); //This is today's test code. > > When I look at the "File" page the source code highlighting breaks at > the single quote. (I think it starts again if you hit another single > quote in another inline comment.) I've just released a new version (1.9.5.7) with this fixed. > 3. I seem to be having problems with Mozilla style getters and setters > not being documented. This is also fixed in 1.9.5.7. Thanks for reporting these bugs. Regards, Gabriel |
From: Gabriel R. <gab...@gm...> - 2005-09-18 13:26:29
|
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 11:22:12AM +0100, Max d'Ayala wrote: > Sorry, I seem to have sent that last meesage just to you when I meant to > send it to the list as well. > > Anyway, attached is the file I am trying to document. > > Interestingly, if I move the first three function/method/getter > declarations below the next set of declarations they don't get > documented, but the new first three do. > > The other getter declarations aren't being documented, so I guess the > problem may stem from the code handling this. > Hmm, strange. I'll try to get this sorted and released this evening. Thanks a lot for re-reporting this, and sending the code sample. Regards, Gabriel |
From: Gabriel R. <gab...@gm...> - 2005-09-18 14:14:39
|
> Interestingly, if I move the first three function/method/getter > declarations below the next set of declarations they don't get > documented, but the new first three do. > > The other getter declarations aren't being documented, so I guess the > problem may stem from the code handling this. Okay, this is taken care of in version 1.9.5.8, which has just been released. Thanks again for reporting it. Gabriel |
From: Max d'A. <ma...@da...> - 2005-09-19 09:17:41
|
Just tried the version 1.9.5.8 and it works fine for me now. The speedy bug fix service is much appreciated. Thanks, Max |