Hi,
Yes I would very much like to see one coding style use.
It would be nice if old code could be automatically reformatted.
And it would probably help the coders if there where syntax files
for this style for popular editors.
(P.S. Is the libgcj coding style written down somewere?)
> Also, I notice that many parts of classpath are documented with javadoc-style
> comments while other parts (and libgcj) leave them out or just have minimal
> comments. The Java APIs are already extensively documented from a variety of
> sources, so it can be argued that such API documentation is redundant.
> Personally I think that large comments make the code a bit harder to read and
> maintain, but I guess that modern editors can be configured to hide javadoc
> comments so that perhaps isn't a real issue. It is also good to have a free
> (as in speech) documentation set.
Yes, I would really like to see classpath/libgcj come with complete
documentation for all public classes and methods. I don't think that existing
API docs (from Sun) are that good. It is often not completly clear from
the specs and the javadoc what a method should do precisely, then you have
to look at other documentation/books or the bug parade. And it is a good way
to explain what choices you made/how you interpreted the spec. Then users
can just read the api documentation without having to go through the code.
I would consider it a bug if a class or method came without javadoc.
And the classpath hackers guide says:
* Please write complete and thorough javadoc comments for every
public and protected method and variable. These should be
superior to Sun's and cover everything about the item being
documented.
(P.S. You might want to use a editor that uses syntax coloring if the jadoc
comments annoy you. Both emacs and vim can do that for you. But the standard
syntax file for vim is ugly. Does someone have a better one?)
Cheers,
Mark
