Well, it is not really detailed documentation. It's a documentation generated automatically and for that you have just to follow a common procedure for writing the comments. It is useful so that when your code is read by other developers, it can be better understood.
2012/2/16 Haykel BEN JEMIA <hayke...@gmail.com>: > Personally I never write detailed documentation while developing. I > generally write a short description and the detailed documentation is > either written by someone else or in another documentation pass, which can > be done in other files. > > I have suggested stub classes in an earlier e-mail because I think this > could be useful also for IDEs. They would not require the whole source code > for auto-completion, documentation etc. > > Haykel > > > > > On 16 February 2012 14:41, Carol Frampton <cfram...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> I am totally against stripping out the asdoc. Who do you think writes the >> asdoc? We do. It is just as important as the code. If you strip it out >> it won't be kept current. It should be part of any code review. >> >> Carol >> >> On 2/16/12 4 :15AM, "Omar Gonzalez" <omarg.develo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Perhaps a script to strip out all comments and a way to create patches >> >> ignoring missing comments would be useful? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Justin >> > >> > >> >I'm not quire sure what you mean. The ideal solution would be to figure >> >out >> >a way to keep comments in such a way that the during development they're >> >not in our files but at release or at patch submission the proper >> >documentation is there. >> > >> >-- >> >Omar Gonzalez >> >s9tpep...@apache.org >> >> -- Mansour Blanco Software engineer Stackoverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/users/612920/mansuro Blog: zuro.blogspot.com github: https://github.com/Mansuro
