On 5/4/2021 10:59 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 04/05/2021 11:32, Burakov, Anatoly: >> On 03-May-21 10:02 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> 21/04/2021 11:11, Conor Walsh: >>>> + The following will include a snippet from the skeleton sample app:: >>>> + >>>> + .. literalinclude:: ../../../examples/skeleton/basicfwd.c >>>> + :language: c >>>> + :start-after: Display the port MAC address. >>>> + :end-before: Enable RX in promiscuous mode for the Ethernet >>>> device. >>>> + :dedent: 1 >>> >>> I would prefer indenting the options with 3 spaces >>> to make them aligned with literalinclude. >>> >>> [...] >>>> +* ``start-after`` and ``end-before`` can use any text within a given file, >>>> + however it may be difficult to find unique text within your code to >>>> mark the >>>> + start and end of your snippets. In these cases, it is recommended to >>>> include >>>> + explicit tags in your code to denote these locations for documentation >>>> purposes. >>>> + >>>> + This can be done as follows: >>>> + >>>> + .. code-block:: c >>>> + >>>> + /* #guide_doc: Example feature being documented. */ >>>> + ... >>>> + /* #guide_doc: End of example feature being documented. */ >>> >>> I think we can standardize this usage in a beautiful syntax. >>> My proposal, using the scissor sign: >>> >>> /* Foo bar >8 */ >>> foo(bar); >>> /* 8< End of foo bar */ >>> >>> .. literalinclude:: foobar.c >>> :language: C >>> :start-after: Foo bar >8 >>> :end-before: 8< End of foo bar >>> >>> Another idea: >>> >>> /*~ Foo bar */ >>> foo(bar); >>> /*~ End of foo bar */ >>> >>> .. literalinclude:: foobar.c >>> :language: C >>> :start-after: ~ Foo bar >>> :end-before: ~ End of foo bar >>> >>> Maybe we don't need any markup for the start line and keep it natural: >>> >>> /* Foo bar */ >>> foo(bar); >>> /* end: Foo bar */ >>> >>> .. literalinclude:: foobar.c >>> :language: C >>> :start-after: Foo bar >>> :end-before: end: Foo bar >> >> Not having markup will 1) risk people accidentally "fixing" or otherwise >> modifying comments, and 2) has bigger potential for collisions elsewhere >> in the comments. While these aren't big risks, IMO it should be >> explicitly obvious that a comment is not just a comment but a marker docs. >> >> Having named tags like in the original proposal is the most explicit >> version of the above, which is why i favor it, but i think it's OK to >> have a lighter-weight syntax (e.g. with scissors for example), however i >> don't think it's a good idea to leave things implicit like your last >> suggestion. > > I think the first comment is not only for code extraction, > but also for code reader, that's why I think it's good to keep it natural. > >
+1 to Anatoly's comment, to make it obvious to the reader of the code that the comment is used for documentation purposes and use explicit syntax for it.
