On 1/24/11 3:36 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:03:24 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
I find documented unittests attractive mainly because they're
_simple_. As soon as we start to add that kind of stuff... exponential
decay.
It's only not simple if you want it to be. The /** Example: */ simple
method is also covered. Let's also not forget that the end result is
generated documentation, not the comments. All this 'non-simplicity' is
going to be hidden there.
I think I worked too much with Walter because I'm almost thinking on his
behalf. The thing is, at this point Walter (and me too) has a sympathy
for language changes that remove undue limitations, and an aversion for
language changes that introduce new stuff that the user would learn.
So if we go to Walter with: "Hey, we can currently document a variety of
declaration, but not unittests. Let's allow documenting unittests as
well" he'd be like, "heh, that sounds great... okay". But if we go to
him with "hey, here's this new feature that needs these syntactic
additions and these semantics and and has several nontrivial effects
and..." then the chance of adoptions are seriously harmed.
Let's stick with KISS. Though I agree there are many improvements that
can be brought to ddoc, I don't want a new feature, only to be able to
document unittests.
Andrei
