Would official syntax be worth it (JSDoc being officially standardized)?
Maybe it's a matter of time: Perhaps now that JSDoc is useful for type
checking (thanks to TypeScript and its ability to type check plain
JavaScript that is annotated with JSDoc) it may be closer to reality.
I prefer JSDoc type annotation in plain .js files over writing .ts
files, because it means I can write type-checked code that has great
intellisense in modern editors like VS Code, without needing any build
steps and with end users being able to consume those source files
directly in any way they want (possibly also without build tools).
However, JSDoc can not currently do everything that regular TypeScript
syntax can do (there's some open issues regarding that in the
TypeScript repo).
#!/JoePea
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:53 AM kai zhu <kaizhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry but my question isn't about providing a tool to generate our
> > documentations but to have a standard syntax to describe our code
> > (signatures). ;)
>
> not standard-practice, but my style is to have documentation of functions
> inside the function (rather than above it).
> simplifies doc-generation by calling function's `.toString()` (rather than
> having to parse the parse the entire script):
>
> ```js
> let html;
> let local;
> local = {};
> local.foo1 = function (aa, bb) {
> /*
> * this function will blah blah blah
> */
> return aa + bb;
> };
> local.foo2 = function (cc, dd) {
> /*
> * this function will yada yada yada
> */
> return cc + dd;
> };
>
> // auto-generate doc for functions in namespace <local>
> html = "<html>\n\n";
> Object.entries(local).sort().forEach(function ([
> name, obj
> ]) {
> if (typeof obj === "function") {
> obj.toString().replace((
> /function\b.*?(\([\S\s]*?\))\s*?\{\n?(\s*?\/\*[\S\s]*?\*\/)/
> ), function (ignore, signature, comment) {
> html += "<h1>function " + name + " " + signature.trim() +
> "</h1>\n";
> html += "<pre>\n" + comment + "\n</pre>\n";
> html += "\n";
> });
> }
> });
> html += "</html>\n";
> console.log(html);
> ```
>
> output
> ```html
> <html>
>
> <h1>function foo1 (aa, bb)</h1>
> <pre>
> /*
> * this function will blah blah blah
> */
> </pre>
>
> <h1>function foo2 (cc, dd)</h1>
> <pre>
> /*
> * this function will yada yada yada
> */
> </pre>
>
> </html>
> ```
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 5:25 AM Michaël Rouges <michael.rou...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry but my question isn't about providing a tool to generate our
>> documentations but to have a standard syntax to describe our code
>> (signatures). ;)
>>
>>
>> Michaël Rouges - https://github.com/Lcfvs - @Lcfvs
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 13 oct. 2020 à 01:29, Jordan Harband <ljh...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hopefully (imo) people are hand-writing more docs now, rather than relying
>>> on autogenerated prose.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 1:23 PM #!/JoePea <j...@trusktr.io> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why not? People are generating less docs now? That doesn't sound good!
>>>>
>>>> #!/JoePea
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 4:15 PM Isiah Meadows <cont...@isiahmeadows.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > JSDoc is not dead (far from it), people just don't frequently use
>>>> > automated docs generation tooling in the JS community. Most the actual
>>>> > use JSDoc provides nowadays is editor autocomplete hints and
>>>> > integrating with TypeScript (in cases where changing the extension
>>>> > isn't possible for whatever reason), so while it's still useful, it's
>>>> > just not used in the same places it was used previously.
>>>> >
>>>> > -----
>>>> >
>>>> > Isiah Meadows
>>>> > cont...@isiahmeadows.com
>>>> > www.isiahmeadows.com
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 6:39 PM Michaël Rouges
>>>> > <michael.rou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Hi all,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Since JSDoc seems cerebrally dead, why the TC39 doesn't make a real
>>>> > > documentation standard, evolving with the langage?
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Actually, a part of the JS community are exiling to TS to type
>>>> > > anything and the rest are just despited by the very outdated version
>>>> > > of JSDoc but don't want to add TS to their stack.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > IMHO, it's really urgent to have something formal to solve that
>>>> > > missing point of my favorite language.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > What would it take to make this dream come true, please?
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Michaël Rouges - https://github.com/Lcfvs - @Lcfvs
>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > es-discuss mailing list
>>>> > > es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>>> > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > es-discuss mailing list
>>>> > es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>>> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
