Jacob Carlborg wrote: > On 2012-10-25 15:20, Mike van Dongen wrote: > > >It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it ;) > >I have commented all code that's not straightforward, but nothing for > >the Ddoc. > > If think the ddoc is the most important one. > > >Can you give me an example of how specific I need to be in the > >documentation? > > I would say as specific as possible. But the interface is pretty > straight forward. It might be enough to have empty ddoc comments for > all the methods that is a part of the URI, i.e. "username", "port" > and so on. Then add documentation for the class that shows how to > use the complete interface. Take a look the > "$.mobile.path.parseUrl()" method part of jquerymobile: > > http://jquerymobile.com/demos/1.2.0/docs/api/methods.html > > It shows an example in the bottom what every "method" would return. > > > >It's not clear to me what you mean by this. > >To clarify: the first 520 lines weren't written by me, and the code I > >have written doesn't use any of those functions. > >Atleast, for now; Moving the functions 'encode' and 'decode' into the > >class Uri may be useful at a later point. > > > >As I'm the new kid on the block, I'm trying not to break others' code. ;) > > Oh, Phobos already has a uri module, then you should leave the other > code. My bad hehe. > > I noticed just now that you moved your new code to std.net.uri. I > don't think it's good to have two uri modules. Either leave the code > in std.uri or move all code to std.net.uri and add a public import > or similar to std.uri. But that is still risk of breaking existing > code.
I'd prefer the second option. Maybe write first some unittests for std.uri, if there are none. Then move it. Jens
