Re: [Pasdoc-main] [RFC] Parsing of the implementation section

[Thomas M. <dum...@gm...>]

Hi Michalis,

On 12/15/05, Michalis Kamburelis <mk...@po...> wrote:

> > I just started to implant the parsing of the implementation section
> > of an unit and it seems to work pretty well.

> First of all, parsing implementation section must be activated by
> some command-line option, like --parse-implementation. Without
> this option pasdoc behaves like it did, and doesn't take any
> comments from the implementation section.

I agree.

> Now, before I say anything else, I want to admit that I will *not* be
> the user of this feature (I still prefer to keep my non-internal
> comments only in the interface),

A collegue of mine has recently complained that all those comments in
the class declaration make the code unreadable and that those comments
should really go into the implementation section where they don't
interfere with the code so much. I think he has got a point there.

> As for visually separating things declared only in the implementation
> and those that are visible in the interface: I'm not sure is it really
> wanted. Simpler approach is to just take comments from the
> implementation section but *only for items declared in the interface*.

Yes, that's a good idea. I think that most people who want to use the
implementation section comments won't put any comments into the
interface section anyway. (at least not for methods and plain
procedures/functions, there will still be comments for classes,
constants, variables - where else could you put them?)

twm