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

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

On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 07:44:28PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 14:53 +0100, Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
>
[...] 
> 
> 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?

FYI I just read your mail, it arrived after I send my response to Michalis.

I don't have a strong opinion about the name, but the parameters
indeed seem to describe the goal not the process. If people agree on
this I'll use these parameters including the extra options for the
parameters and their options.

Mark de Wever