[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Steve Donovan's ldoc: recognized function declaration formats and possible bug
- From: Lorenzo Donati <lorenzodonatibz@...>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:10:13 +0200
On 13/06/2011 13.54, steve donovan wrote:
Yes, of course. In fact I was about to suggest that ldoc could have a
switch to allow private vs. public documentation generation option.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Lorenzo Donati
Of course not for building API documentation, but for "in-house"
documentation. Sometimes it happens that a long module has to be
refactored/changed/extended and some of its "private" local functions are to
be reused (or made public).
This is a good argument. I would suggest however that such private
functions/tables/etc live in their own 'documentation namespace', e.g.
'Local Functions' so that the external user of the API won't be
Then add a @private tag to whatever entity you want not to appear in the
The cherry on top would be that @private were followed by a keyword, to
differentiate between different kind of "privateness".
Then you could do, say (syntax to be designed better):
to generate full documentation on internal stuff, or
ldoc -private "utility,broken"
to generate private docs only for items tagged as