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

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

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:46:28PM +0100, Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
> 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.

I'll think about it, note that if you don't use te new switches, the
output remains as it used to be. If other people has an option, please
let me know.

> 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 :)

One of the many at the moment :) but thx, a copy and paste error.

> 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...

yep I move the implementation line up and down every now and then...
BTW I use this accidental feature to also parse the uses in the
implementation... 

Mark

PS next week I won't be behind my computer often so I won't be able to
do a lot or answer emails.