[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Public methods description should be in header files
From: |
Pascal Bourguignon |
Subject: |
Re: Public methods description should be in header files |
Date: |
Mon, 14 Oct 2002 20:39:44 +0200 (CEST) |
> From: Richard Frith-Macdonald <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:22:52 +0100
>
>
> On Monday, October 14, 2002, at 12:44 pm, Nicola Pero wrote:
>
> >
> >> As I understand it you are basically saying that you want the
> >> source of all documentation to be in header files and nowhere
> >> else, basically because you like the ease of reading them in
> >> emacs, but also perhaps for idealistic reasons of separation of
> >> interface and implementation, and conflation of documentation
> >> with interface.
> >
> > Not all documentation has to be in headers ... all public
> > documentation has to be in headers; documentation about
> > implementation details and library internals is to be in sources.
> >
> > But yes - this is my main point - the headers declare the
> > available public library API to the compilers and programmers
> > using it so it's most natural to have the documentation about the
> > public library API there.
>
> I think the purpose of header files is to declare interface to the
> compiler, and making human beings use them is fundamentally a little
> wrong, as it is making the human conform to the needs of the
> machine. Sure, programmers have to conform to the system all the
> time, but that's a necessary compromise, not a virtue. Only habit
> makes it seem natural - documentation is not the same thing as
> interface. Pretty much all major software systems have separate
> documentation, because most people find that easier than looking
> through source/headers.
No. For a library, it's much better to have the documentation in the
headers.
We're not speaking about an application and the documentation of a
user program that of course should not stays in the "sources".
Everytime I had to use a library with a separate documentation I had
big problems and have had to revert to the headers to solve them. A
separate documentation is never as precise, exact and up-to-date as a
header.
But that said, usually the headers lack precise documentation about
the general ways and the general features of a library (because a
header concerns only one class or one module, not the whole library),
so yes, we need an additionnal documentation too. But it's better (I
would say essential) to have the documentation of each unit in its
interface file.
> However, I see that as a fairly minor point. My concern is with
> getting people to write documentation ... not really an issue in
> your case since you are very good at writing it.
> [...]
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The name is Baud,...... James Baud.
- Re: Public methods description should be in header files, (continued)
- Re: Public methods description should be in header files, Pascal Bourguignon, 2002/10/13
- Re: Public methods description should be in header files, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2002/10/14
- Re: Public methods description should be in header files, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2002/10/14
- Re: Public methods description should be in header files, Nicola Pero, 2002/10/14
- Re: Public methods description should be in header files, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2002/10/14
- Re: Public methods description should be in header files, Nicola Pero, 2002/10/14
- Re: Public methods description should be in header files, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2002/10/14
- Re: Public methods description should be in header files, Adam Fedor, 2002/10/14
- Re: Public methods description should be in header files,
Pascal Bourguignon <=
- Re: Public methods description should be in header files, Pascal Bourguignon, 2002/10/14