Whatever would be better than what we have now. I like what you propose, makes sense and doesn't loads the UI with more stuff.
I am willing to test your implementation for sure. Phil On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@gmail.com> > Date: 2016-09-16 17:01 GMT+02:00 > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] Call for design for a literal programming doc > similar to PythonDocTest > To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> > > > > > 2016-09-16 0:19 GMT+02:00 p...@highoctane.be <p...@highoctane.be>: > >> I'd be more interested with a package level doc than a class doc or test. >> >> Package level doc is quite useful to outline how some things are working >> together, something which is quite hard to figure out except by reading >> external doc or inferring things by walking through the code or a running >> test. >> > > > Why don't we have yet package comments ? > I see there is some support for it in PackageManifest, I remember there > was some work (people working) on support for Nautilus, no? > > maybe something like this, (see attached file) > Nautilus comment pane > on class selection -> show class comment > no class selection -> show package comment (class side #description of > package manifest of this package) > you can even add or change the (package) comment, it will compile a proper > #description method on the manifest class) > > > Anyone looked at this ? > Is this what we can use for supporting and editing package comments? I am > not sure if the > use of package manifests is how we wanted to implement package comments. > Any other ideas? > > I can open a fogbugzs issue and refine this implementation a little bit. > > > >> Having the ability to read about a package would be very useful. >> Basically, this is what Java provides. >> >> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/tools/solaris >> /javadoc.html#packagecomment >> >> Phil >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:45 PM, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> I want something similar in the spirit to PythonDocTest >>> https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html >>> >>> I'm talking about >>> >>> basename >>> "Returns the base of the basename, >>> i.e. >>> /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz' >>> / basename is '/'" >>> >>> Pragmas do not work well i.e., >>> basename >>> "Returns the base of the basename" >>> <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: >>> 'gloops.taz'> >>> >>> >>> We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can >>> easily parse because we need to improve >>> the use and discovery of the library. >>> >>> I was thinking about >>> >>> basename >>> "Returns the base of the basename" >>> " >>> '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> >>> 'gloops.taz' >>> " >>> >>> Do you have any idea? >>> >>> I cannot not do anything and just complain that our methods are not that >>> well documented. >>> We as a community should take this and build an super cool system. >>> >>> I tried and defined >>> on Object to see if it works! >>> >>> Object >>> aResultingObject >>> "If the method comment contains >>> then it is a pharo documentated >>> test. We can check that it is true." >>> >>> " >>> '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> >>> 'gloops.taz' >>> " >>> >>> ^ self = aResultingObject >>> >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>> >> > >
