jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 12 19:05:56 UTC 2008
On Jan 2, 2008 7:18 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am not sure what "the right thing" is in this situation.
> > Does this mean that the result is executable in place? Can it be copied
> > and pasted to another workspace and
> > still be executed as is?
> > Adding features to browsers is a lost cause now that there are so many
> > browsers to support with such features.
> > I am not sure that I want all of my comments/documentation to be in
> > green barely legible italics.
> > The option of finishing method parsing at a line beginning with """"""
> > is trivial to add to current systems in a safe way. I am using this for
> > the 'Sake' documentation. Once we have an example of this in use it
> > might be worth looking to put in place a more comprehensive solution.
> I think, reserving a slot in CompiledMethod and in Class(es) for
> documentation is better way.
> Simply put there any object , which should answer #show message. And
> then you can attach anything you like: URL, in-image PDF or
> > cheers
> > Keith
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
We don't have to modify those classes, we can make the relationship on
the documentation side (i.e. documentation classes point to what they
document). This would ensure we don't make a big increase in the size
of a running image. The documentation aware messages can still be on
the message objects, they just do their work by asking the
documentation machinery. This would be a little slower, but have
potentially less impact to a deployed image and displaying
documentation isn't happening in tight loops so it should be fine.
More information about the Squeak-dev