[squeak-dev] [Documentation] What about package comments?

Hannes Hirzel hannes.hirzel at gmail.com
Fri Apr 23 18:00:24 UTC 2010


I found the proposal by Bernhard Pieber and Ralph Johnson to introduce
package comments?

It was in the thread HttpView2 where I think some people interested in
documentation will miss it.

An application could be to automatically generate  documentation, i.e.
for example at Squeaksource.


>From the HttpView2 thread

On 4/23/10, Ralph Johnson <johnson at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Bernhard Pieber <bernhard at pieber.com>wrote:
>> - IMHO, there should be first class package comments along the lines of
>> class and method comments, i.e. version controlled in PackageInfo. This
>> would greatly improve the Monticello browser. And SqueakSource could use
>> them as project descriptions. (I once argued [1] that the easiest
>> implementation of this would be a PackageInfo subclass for each package.
>> Its
>> class comment would be the package comment. Pre and post load code could
>> be
>> put there as well. You could reuse all the development tools like that.)
>> [1]
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2005-February/088181.html
> This seems like a good idea.  What tools would have to change to make this
> work, and could we make this change backwards compatible?  For example, if
> you move the preload and postload code to the PackageInfo subclass then you
> could leave forwarding code behind.  Tools wouldn't bother displaying the
> forwarding code if they saw the PackageInfo subclass, but would keep it so
> that older versions of the tools would still work.
> -Ralph

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list