04/05/2021 12:35, Ferruh Yigit: > 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.
So you assume the comment is only for doc extraction? I think it can be a real comment, otherwise we'll need to have 2 lines: 1 for doc extraction, 1 for code comment.
