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

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

On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 08:43 +0100, Mark de Wever wrote:

> When an item defined in the interface has a comment in both the=20
> interface and the implementation, what would people prefer to do.=20
> I think we should give a warning and use the comment in the=20
> implementation, just like the backcomment now does to a normal=20
> comment in the interface. When also defining a backcomment in the
> implementation ( I don't know why one would do so ) that one would
> override the previous one. Thus simply always use the method, last
> comment sticks.

Maybe the comment in the interface could (optionally?) be used as the
abstract if it is short enough (usual rules apply)? Then you could have
some terse description in the interface section and the detailed one
below. Wasn't the main problem people had with this that it cluttered
the interface section too much? A terse abstract could still be useful
there...

Just an idea, I don't have a real opinion on this.

johannes