|
From: | Adam Fedor |
Subject: | Re: Public methods description should be in header files |
Date: | Sun, 13 Oct 2002 13:24:19 -0600 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux ppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020610 |
Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
1. (This one I strongly believe myself) If the source comments for thedocumentation are stored in the .m rather than the .h files, library developers (working on the GNUstep code itself) are more likely to keep them up to date.2. (I think a weaker reason) Removing comments from the headers should encourage people to read the documentation, showing them that there is a single location for reference information. I think Adam said recently that improving documentation should be a major aim ... so this makes sense.
Yes, all that and also to be consistant. Most of the documentation in the base and gui library is in the source (due to reason 1).
Also, perhaps this is just a personal reason: When I want to just know the name of a method, I look at the headers, but when I want to understand them, I look at the documentation and at the source just to make sure I understand everything about it.
-- Adam Fedor, Digital Optics Corp. | I'm glad I hate spinach, because http://www.doc.com | if I didn't, I'd eat it, and you | know how I hate the stuff.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |