On 5/4/2021 11:44 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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. >
I see your point, for the cases that there is already a comment before (or after) the code, will it be too bad to have multiple lines, something like: /* Actual comment * More details * * explicit marker */ I think explicit marker has the advantage of: - Whoever updating the comment will know that it is a marker for the documentation and be careful on update - Whoever updating the code between the markers, know that it may be required to re-visit the relevant documentation and update it because of code change - Whoever reading the code will know that part is in a documentation, and may be interested to go and check the relevant documentation - Whoever reading the code, and not very familiar with DPDK convention, still can understand what that comment is for and benefit from above
