On 31/08/2011 13:17, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Martin wrote:
What I meant was:
- TEnum.One / TEnum.One /TEnum
are still each of them documented in their own xml node, exactly as
they currently are.
But in TEnum xml node would be an attribute (or a node) declaring:
<embed>SomePropertynameUsingTEnum</embed>
This is what the '<seealso>' is for.
see also is different
It's not useful to have only 1 "priviledged" <embed> since an enum may
be used in many properties of many classes.
that can only be confirmed/decided by the author of the code/docs.
The original mail, that triggered the idea was:
On 31/08/2011 09:43, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
type
TMyEnum = (one, two);
TMySet = set of TMyEnum;
...
property MyProp: TMySet read GetIt write SetIt;
Now we have 7 identifiers, all refering to the essentially same data
type. IMO it's only excess work, to document all these elements by
themselves, when finally only the property is of interest. Instead I'd
prefer a single doc entry, for the property, that also describes the
enum elements. All related elements then can be linked to that unique
description.
Indicating the desire to have the documentation of the enum exclusively
within one property.
Currently that can be done, by just putting it there by hand.
That of course means, should you ever have to link it (which in the
avbove case should not be needed / if it was needed it should likely not
have been embedded) then the author has to remember to put in the
corrected link himself
Putting the enum manually into the property however means more work, if
it should later be needed to move to it's own help-page.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
