Citát Richard Frith-Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 28 Nov 2005, at 09:17, Stefan Urbanek wrote: > > > 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 | > > Easy to get the parser to recognise empty implementations ... but > what to do about it is not clear.
Put on the webpage: "development wanted". > I like the idea though. > > How about ... if the parser could warn about empty implementations, > so we know when something needs doing, and if no documentation > comment is provided for the method, it could generate standard stuff > about the method not being implemented yet (in the place where is > currently generates the 'documentation forthcoming' message. > It can be good for documentation where target would be GNUstep-core developers. However, for GNUstep users (developers of gnustep frameworks or applications) it would be a noise in the documentation. On the other hand, it can serve as a signal for developers that are willing to contribute... > Generally, if a class is abstract/semi-abstract then subclasses are > supposed to override methods ... so an empty implementation here > could be quite OK ... but we could get the parser to check to see if > it has seen the <override-subclass /> markup in the comment for the > method, and accept an empty implementation as OK in that case. > Sounds good. 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
