Hi
Am 14.10.19 um 22:48 schrieb [email protected]:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jani Nikula on October 13, 2019 11:00 PM
>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2019, Changbin Du <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The 'functions' directive is not only for functions, but also works for
>>> structs/unions. So the name is misleading. This patch renames it to
>>> 'specific', so now we have export/internal/specific directives to limit
>>> the functions/types to be included in documentation. Meanwhile we
>> improved
>>> the warning message.
>>
>> Agreed on "functions" being less than perfect. It directly exposes the
>> idiosyncrasies of scripts/kernel-doc. I'm not sure "specific" is any
>> better, though.
>
> I strongly agree with this. 'specific' IMHO, has no semantic value and
> I'd rather just leave the only-sometimes-wrong 'functions' than convert
> to something that obscures the meaning always.
>
>>
>> Perhaps "symbols" would be more self-explanatory. Or, actually make
>> "functions" only work on functions, and add a separate keyword for other
>> stuff. *shrug*
> My preference would be to use 'symbols'. I tried to come up with something
> but 'symbols' is better than anything I came up with.
Maybe 'interfaces' or 'artifacts'. The term 'symbols' is just as
imprecise as 'functions'.
Best regards
Thomas
>>
>> Seems like the patch is way too big. I'd probably add "symbols" (or
>> whatever) as a synonym for "functions" for starters, and convert
>> documents piecemeal, and finally drop the old one.
>>
>> The scripts/kernel-doc change should be a patch of its own.
> Agreed on these two points as well.
>
> Just adding my 2 cents.
> -- Tim
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>
--
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:25:53AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> > My preference would be to use 'symbols'. I tried to come up with something
> > but 'symbols' is better than anything I came up with.
>
> Maybe 'interfaces' or 'artifacts'. The term 'symbols' is just as
> imprecise as 'functions'.
I suggested 'identifier' because that's the term used in the C spec (6.2.1):
: An identifier can denote an object; a function; a tag or a member
: of a structure, union, or enumeration; a typedef name; a label name;
: a macro name; or a macro parameter.
We don't allow documenting all those things separately, but it does cover
all the things we do allow to be individually documented.
Hi
Am 15.10.19 um 13:54 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:25:53AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>>> My preference would be to use 'symbols'. I tried to come up with something
>>> but 'symbols' is better than anything I came up with.
>>
>> Maybe 'interfaces' or 'artifacts'. The term 'symbols' is just as
>> imprecise as 'functions'.
>
> I suggested 'identifier' because that's the term used in the C spec (6.2.1):
>
> : An identifier can denote an object; a function; a tag or a member
> : of a structure, union, or enumeration; a typedef name; a label name;
> : a macro name; or a macro parameter.
>
> We don't allow documenting all those things separately, but it does cover
> all the things we do allow to be individually documented.
>
Yeah, makes sense.
Best regards
Thomas
--
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019, Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:25:53AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>> > My preference would be to use 'symbols'. I tried to come up with something
>> > but 'symbols' is better than anything I came up with.
>>
>> Maybe 'interfaces' or 'artifacts'. The term 'symbols' is just as
>> imprecise as 'functions'.
>
> I suggested 'identifier' because that's the term used in the C spec (6.2.1):
>
> : An identifier can denote an object; a function; a tag or a member
> : of a structure, union, or enumeration; a typedef name; a label name;
> : a macro name; or a macro parameter.
>
> We don't allow documenting all those things separately, but it does cover
> all the things we do allow to be individually documented.
Agreed.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center