On Fri, 23 May 2008 12:31:14 +0900 이희승 (Trustin Lee) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 12:21:43 +0900, Emmanuel Lecharny > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 이희승 (Trustin Lee) wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 May 2008 12:02:45 +0900, Emmanuel Lecharny > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> 이희승 (Trustin Lee) wrote: > >>>> Every public methods except for the constructors are overridden > >>>> from its supertypes and interfaces. They all got proper > >>>> JavaDoc comments. Let me know if I am missing something. > >>> > >>> Adding a @see Class#method() in the implementation then should > >>> help. When you look at a method javadoc it's better to know where > >>> too look at : the intheritance scheme can be feilry complex, and > >>> it can be a burden to retreive the associated Javadoc. > >>> > >>> Something like : > >>> /** > >>> * @see javax.naming.Context#close() > >>> */ > >>> public void close() throws NamingException > >>> ... > >> > >> I'd just move the cursor on the method? That shows pretty nicely > >> rendered JavaDoc in modern IDEs. > > Sometime, you just have to use vi or emacs. Make it simple for > > users : add a @see tag. Cost almost nothing, and it helps. > > I wouldn't bother with vi or emacs. They pay for what they use. > Moreover, it's not 'almost nothing'. > Hi, Well I use vi sometimes and a @see or @inheritedDoc would help. I agree with Emmanuel, I don't feel I need to pay something for using vi ;) And that would make html generated javadoc much readable. Julien
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
