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

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

Mark de Wever wrote:
[...]
> 
> Attached a sample of how things are going to look with 
> --show-uses=all --show-implementation=all
> I only added the declaration symbols for the procedures and functions for now.
> 
> When --show-implementation<>all the output as it currently is is used.
> 
> I (ab)used the legend of the members at the moment, should we have one
> legend page with both or two legend pages?
> 

I think that one legend page with two tables (first the table titled 
"Visibility of classes/interfaces/objects members" with the previous 
private, protected, etc. rows, and then the 2nd table titled "Where the 
item is declared" (maybe you can propose some better name for it...) 
with 3 rows with your new values "Program", "Unit interface", 
"Implementation"). I think that this will look sensible.

Notes:

1. Maybe the cell for standard visibility "Unit interface" would be 
better left blank ? I.e. you could replace the defined_in_unit_interface 
file with a simple completely transparent GIF image. I just did this 
with GIMP and result looks good...

But it may be just because I'm accustomed to seeing only the things 
visible in the interface, and I like to easily visually "see" the 
difference between "Defined in unit's interface" and the rest of items. 
Decision is up to you.

2. Note that file `defined_in_unit_interface' is without the extension, 
i.e. it's named (and linked as) `defined_in_unit_interface' instead of 
`defined_in_unit_interface.gif'. (Just a minor note, in case you didn't 
know about this and you have some bug :)

3. Note that in your testcase you have two separate "uses" clauses in 
the interface. Sure, pasdoc parses it (by kind of accident), but you 
probably wanted to move the "uses another_unit;" clause to 
implementation section to test this also...

Michalis