Citát David Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Richard Frith-Macdonald schrieb: <snip>
> > > > Having a completely unimplemented class there gives us a good > > placeholder for the documentation that tells people that the class is > > unimplemented, and maybe what the current plans are for it. I can see > > the argument here for removing the class (people aren't likely to think > > the class exists if there is no trace of it), but I think that a header > > file that's clearly a shell, and documentation that states that the > > class is unimplemented, is equally clear. We could document such empty > > classes with a note to say that someone (or nobody) is working on them, > > and a pointer to the task list on the website for current status. > > FWIW, I agree. > How difficult it would be to hack autogsdoc objective-c parser to parse GNUstep sources and generate a list of unimplemented methods (either marked as not implemented or being only in @interface)? Simple html table (with css): | Class | Method | Description | Stefan -- http://stefan.agentfarms.net First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
