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

[Johannes B. <joh...@si...>]

On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 14:53 +0100, Michalis Kamburelis wrote:

> So I don't think that --parse-implementation=3Donly-uses is needed. I see
> it like this: --parse-implementation=3Dall shows all internal details
> about implementation (all items (procedures etc.) defined in the
> implementation, and all units used in the implementation) and
> --parse-implementation=3Donly-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).

Hmm. I was going to write that this makes sense, but I'm kinda late in
the game :)

> [...]
> > In reply to myself maybe a switch to --write-uses-list would be a bette=
r
> > option.
>=20
> 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.

This, however, doesn't make sense ;) It should be perfectly possibly to
make a string option default to one value if it is given and another if
it is not given (though the current OptionParser might not allow it it
should be easy to add).

Anyway, I digress. I don't think adding it to --write-uses-list makes
sense either since then you have to use --parse-implementation together
with that to get full output. In fact, I think I'd prefer the following
possible settings along with a rename from --parse-implementation to
--show-implementation:

--show-implementation       given: default to all
                        not given: default to nothing
                  possible values: all,nothing,only-for-interface

--write-uses-list           given: default to yes
                        not given: default to no
                  possible values: yes,no,only-interface
                            [only-implementation doesn't make sense]

The reason for renaming from --parse-... to --show-... is that the
actual parsing is just a detail of what pasdoc needs to do to fulfil the
goal of showing the comments in the implementation section, and I think
the command line options should be named after the goal not the process.

What do you think?

johannes