04/05/2021 13:15, Ferruh Yigit: > 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
I understand these points. But I'm afraid the proposed syntax #guide_doc: is not so obvious for everybody. I'm sure there can be a better syntax.
