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

[Mark de W. <ko...@xs...>]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:17:48PM +0100, Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
> Mark de Wever wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 09:05:28AM +0100, Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
[...]
> Indeed, this may be a good situation when it's appropriate to display
> things visible only in the implementation.
> 
> >I was thinking about adding the member 'implementation' to the 
> >--visible-members parameter. (Forgot to mention that in my original mail.)
> >
> 
> I would prefer to not overload --visible-members option for this. The
> word "members" suggests that it should control only the members of
> classes/interfaces/etc.

I haven't looked in how it was implanted, but thought it would be easy
this way, but since we go for 2 ( or 3 see below ) options this wouldn't
make sense anymore.

> 
> >If we want the option to scan the interface only for comment for items
> >defined in the interface and the option to add also new items found in
> >the implementation I like your parameters better.
> >
> 
> So, reading also Thomas's mail in this thread, I guess that yes, we want 
> both options possible. So this is your way to go (if you want to please 
> everyone, that is :) ).

I probably should make a funny comment now... ;)

> 
> When I was applying your patch in thread "Comments in program file" I 
> realized that you will have to also parse uses clauses in implementation 
> section. (this was even requested once, see 
> [http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=976519&group_id=4213&atid=354213] 
> in the 4th question).

See my latest response there.

> So then ParseUses call will be removed from ParseProgram and replaced 
> with your ParseImplementationSection, and ParseImplementationSection 
> will call ParseUses.
> 
> How are you going to display units used in the implementation section of 
> the unit ? My proposition (that seems consistent to me right now) would 
> be to
> a) When --parse-implementation=only-for-interface, don't show them (they 
> are internal details)
> b) When --parse-implementation=all, show them, somehow marking that they 
> are used in the implementation (e.g. you can just write string "(used by 
> implementation)" after their names when displaying list of used units in 
> html and latex outputs).

I don't get the question, how or when? I assume when.
We can do that, was thinking of maybe a third one

--parse-implementation=only-uses

To only get the uses clause, so pasdoc can find the other units it needs
to parse.


> 
> Michalis

Attached a sample output of how it parses everything at the moment, the
implementation items are not marked. The archive shows the output
generated for test_unit.pp, also in the archive.

Mark