[Mono-docs-list] Re: [Mono-dev] Monodoc

[Joshua Tauberer]

Matthijs ter Woord wrote:
> Is there any special format needed? (IE, ecma xml docs etc) If so, could
> anyone point me to it?

So the goal is to extend our XML format to handle generic classes, and 
that includes 1) how to include the generic part of a type/member 
signature in the metadata parts of the XML, and 2) how this affects 
<see> tags.  (Maybe there are more things not coming to mind.)  As for 
(1), I think we can do this however we want.  Monodocer and the monodoc 
stylesheet would just need to be updated.  For (2), we want to remain 
compatible with the inline documentation format Microsoft uses, for 
instance to be compatible with NDoc.

So, what would be useful would be for someone to dig around and see if 
Microsoft has updated their /doc tag reference for generics.

Updating monodocer means having it be compiled with gmcs so it can 
reflect to get generics.  But, monodocer should really be changed to use 
Cecil (rather than reflection) first before doing this.  Does anyone 
know how Cecil is doing?  (The main reasons to not use reflection is 
that reflection doesn't give access to how attribute are constructed, so 
currently monodocer is making up something reasonable to display.)

- Josh

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Miguel de Icaza" <miguel at ximian.com>
> To: "Matthijs ter Woord" <matthijsterwoord at gmail.com>;
> <mono-docs-list at lists.ximian.com>
> Cc: <mono-devel-list at ximian.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 4:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [Mono-dev] Monodoc
> 
> 
> 
>>Hello,
>>
>>
>>>When will monodoc be ready for .NET 2.0 classes? (ie, when will it
>>>also allow to document generics)
>>
>>We will have to wait for someone to contribute the necessary code to
>>cope with this.  I have not had much time to look into this issue.
>>
>>What needs to be done is:
>>
>>* Look at the new ECMA XML documentation from ECMA and evaluate
>>  how we could bring those changes into our documentation.
>>
>>* Someone would have to port the new docs nonetheless.
>>
>>* Someone would have to architect the changes to the monodoc
>>  engine to do so.
>>
>>The right place to discuss this is the mono-docs-list.
>>
>>That being said, if you can not wait to write some documentation, we
>>have a *lot* of stuff in the 1.x profile that needs documentation.
>>Considering that 2.x stuff wont be 100% supported for a while, maybe it
>>would be best to contribute to the 1.x effort.