thrift-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig Peterson <cpeter...@ancestry.com>
Subject RE: Is full program doctext still allowed?
Date Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:02:50 GMT
I have tried randomly poking at the grammar file, and have not been able to make it work. Still
working on getting my environment set up properly in windows. I have no experience with bison
to help me. If it is too difficult to distinguish a program level doc from a doc on the first
element, perhaps an extended syntax could be used to indicate a program level doc. Perhaps
"/%% Foo %/" or "/*** Foo */" could work. I'll keep playing with it today.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jens Geyer [mailto:jensgeyer@hotmail.com] 
Sent: 13 January 2014 3:10
To: user@thrift.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is full program doctext still allowed?

Hi Craig,

AFAIK it is not implemented yet. I never tried it myself, and never took the time to think
through the arguments given there. But I agree it could be helpful occasinally. Can't tell
how much of effort is needed. Maybe you want to find out :-) ?

JensG



-----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
From: Craig Peterson
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 10:51 PM
To: user@thrift.apache.org
Subject: Is full program doctext still allowed?

I am trying to use the html generator to generate documentation for my thrift api. It would
be really useful to provide a blob of text to go at the top to explain the entire program.
I can't seem to get the compiler to recognize doctext for the entire program. After reading
the source of thrifty.yy, I am not sure if it is working as intended, or if my syntax is off.
There are comments debating the merits of allowing fill-program doctext, as well as code that
sets the doc on the root program, as well as syntactic elements called DestroyDocText and
similar things. It has all left me very confused. Is there a way to do full program docs or
not?



Mime
View raw message