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

[Michalis K. <mk...@po...>]

Mark de Wever wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:17:48PM +0100, Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
[...]
>>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.
> 

My question was both "how and when". The final decision in this regard
is up to you, but I think that the third version like
--parse-implementation=only-uses is not needed. Looking at your sample
output, in the "uses" clause of test_unit you show a list:

   * a_unit
   * another_unit

My proposition was to show only

   * a_unit

when --parse-implementation=only-for-interface was used (or no
--parse-implementation=xxx was used at all). And to show

   * a_unit
   * another_unit (used by implementation)

when --parse-implementation=all was used. So you show in this case that
"another_unit" is used, and at the same time you're clearly showing that
it's used only by implementation.

Of course, this is all assuming that --write-uses-list option was also
specified, without --write-uses-list no "uses" section is shown at all.

So I don't think that --parse-implementation=only-uses is needed. I see
it like this: --parse-implementation=all shows all internal details
about implementation (all items (procedures etc.) defined in the
implementation, and all units used in the implementation) and
--parse-implementation=only-for-interface doesn't show these internal
things (so it doesn't show items that are visible only in the
implementation and it doesn't show units that are used only by the
implementation).

[...]
> In reply to myself maybe a switch to --write-uses-list would be a better
> option.

Introducing an argument for --write-uses-list option would break
compatibility (because then everyone would have to always pass some
argument to it). I don't think it's necessary, see above.

Michalis