Re: [Pasdoc-main] PasDoc 0.12.0 release next week, and decisions for PasDoc2 branch

[Michalis K. <mic...@gm...>]

Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
>> See the mail at the beginning of this thread, where I start with
>> mentioning which tests fail.
> 
> All tests with post-D7 syntax will fail, of course, because I removed 
> all new syntax elements from the parser. I don't consider such files 
> valid code, for now.

A lot of stuff broken in PasDoc2 branch doesn't have any relation to
post-Delphi7 features. Just read the mails where I point out which tests
fail, and stop covering behind non-existing issues. Some examples (once
again): pasdoc parsing its own code (while pasdoc source doesn't use
post-D7 features, yet they fail around @orderedlist and "bad Add mode"),
ok_back_comment (//< comments), ok_vorbisfile (fpc macros).

And, a second note: you removed support for some post-D7 features,
because you considered the code hacky, and then you say you wait for
some specifications what to do next. Well, here's how things are
supposed to work: if you remove some code, then be prepared to know how
to replace it with something better. You are responsible for doing a
better design and proving that it works. You may get some help from
others, but not until I can see that you bring some advantages --- in
this case, you made some changes that I consider ugly (mixing generators
and scanners knowledge) and you introduced bugs (*not* only at post-D7
features).

Right now, the end result of PasDoc2 branch:
1. You broke some post-D7 features (which I can accept, but only as an
intermediate step to implementing them even better),
2. You broke some stuff not related to post-D7 features (which is a
verifiable fact by simply running the testsuite, yet you somehow manage
to ignore it in your emails).

Sorry if it sounds harsh, but that's the way I see it. A single commit
from you to PasDoc2 branch, attempting to fix at least a single problem
there, may change my mind. Another mail, where you repeat that you wait
for someone else to design a better model, and ignore actual bugs that
are pointed out to you, will not help in advancing the PasDoc2 branch.

Michalis