[Mono-docs-list] Fwd: [Mono-winforms-list] Exception when using monodocer on System.Windows.Forms.dll

latency latency at gmx.de
Mon Dec 18 12:12:49 EST 2006

On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:19, Jonathan Pryor wrote:
On Sun, 2006-12-17 at 13:19 -0500, Miguel de Icaza wrote:

> Thus, I propose the following: Change monodoc/class/Makefile.am's
> `update' target to be:
> 	update:
> 		for a in $(UPDATE_ASSEMBLIES); do \
> 			mono --debug ../tools/monodocer.exe \
> 			../../mcs/class/default/$a ;
> 		done
> 		for a in $(UPDATE_ASSEMBLIES); do \
> 			mono --debug ../tools/monodocer.exe \
> 			../../mcs/class/net_2_0/$a ;
> 		done

Please don't forget to adapt the makefile to assemble the generated 
documentation. Right now this is not being done in a generic way, every 
documented assembly is hard coded into the Makefile.am.

> And finally, my last concern is that stubs are not documentation,
> stubbing things out is the easy part.  Actually writing the
> documentation is the hard part, and we have historically not been able
> to attract people to do this work.

This may be right but not providing the stubs in monodoc makes it impossible 
for users to contribute documentation. That way at least a few things can be 
documented. In addition I have to say that I agree to Jonathan stubs can be 
usefull to since they provide the name of the argument, from which you can at 
least imagine how to use the method correctly.

Kind Regards,
Valentin S.

More information about the Mono-docs-list mailing list