Hyrum Wright wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:08:41 +0100:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name>
> wrote:
> > [1] For the [out] parameter, can we have @param[out,optional] and
> > @param[out,mandatory] notations, or do we have to say "may be NULL"
> > in the prose?)
>
> @param[out] is part of the doxygen markup (not just some arbitrary
> notation). I don't know what it would do in the face of extra values
> (see http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/commands.html#cmdparam)
>
Well, the [mandatory] and [optional] could be a nice extension to that
syntax.
> >
> > [2] How about introducing:
> >
> > struct svn_ra_node_t {
> > const char *repos_relpath;
> > svn_revnum_t peg;
> > };
> >
> > struct svn_client_node_t {
> > const char *path_or_URL;
> > svn_opt_revision_t *peg;
> > };
> >
> > (that will also help make the docstrings clearer)
>
> You'd probably want to the revision in there too, much like we do for
> svn_client_copy_source_t. Both the peg revision and the operative
> revision are used to specify a node (though in the absence of one, the
> default is generally the other, I think).
>
Yeah, I can argue to have those structs both with/without the operative
revision in them.
Either way, what I had in mind was using these structs in APIs instead
of having separate 'path' and 'peg_revision' arguments. This will
simplify docstrings (we can say "the node" instead of "the path as it
existed at the peg revision"), and it's logically correct too (represent
logical tuples as structs: the 'node', as one unit, is the target of the
operation).
Thoughts?
> -Hyrum
