What about creating stub classes for the documentation? I think this how it is done for PHP. This could make maintenance of documentation harder though.
Haykel On 16 February 2012 10:01, Omar Gonzalez <omarg.develo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:38 AM, David Arno <da...@davidarno.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 18:05 +1100, Justin Mclean wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Was looking though some of the framework code and noticed that a lot of > > method are marked up with comments that are imported into documents re > > player version and the like. > > > > > > Here's a typical section. > > > * @langversion 3.0 > > > * @playerversion Flash 9 > > > * @playerversion AIR 1.1 > > > * @productversion Flex 3 > > > > > > Going forward when adding new methods what are the values we should > use? > > Do we just go with current versions like so: > > > * @langversion 3.0 > > > * @playerversion Flash 11.1 > > > * @playerversion AIR 3.1 > > > * @productversion Apache Flex 4.7 > > > > > I'd really like it if we could figure out a way of getting rid of all > > that crap out of the framework as it makes reading the code far more > > difficult. > > > > David. > > > > I'd love to find a solution that would let us continue to generate ASDocs > without polluting the code with tons of comments. Like you said it'd make > the code a lot easier to read through, but I have never heard of any > solutions for this. I remember either reading or hearing someone speak > about an attempt at doing this, but I don't know where that ended up. Right > now the only thing I can think of is reducing each block to an include() > which would suck as well but would at least reduce some of these comments > from 50+ lines to 1. However it'll be a lot of includes in a single class > file. Any other ideas? > > -omar >
