[Mono-list] Re: [Mono-hackers-list] Re: Patch for mcs

Atsushi Eno atsushi@ximian.com
Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:39:50 +0900


>    However, the Documentation part would be standard. The only
> extension that I need is that I want raw string and not XMLElement.

To avoid pointless discussion, I just renamed my Documentation to
DocComment (and moreover, now my patch does not hold XmlElement).

So now we can discuss your patch as a standalone one.

>    The reason is "/doc" is a standard switch thought about being
> provided in mcs as well. My patch provides basic infrastructure to it.
> Only that it does not generate and XML-file or validate or create any
> XML-nodes.

I cannot understand why your patch could be infrastructure for /doc
switch. At least for XML documentation my patch will never use your
code block, since it has many more required checks. Or should I use
your codebase? Is it better choice?

It makes sense if you mean that your patch is infrastructure for the
functionality that is activated with your /mcsdoc-whatever switch.

>>other mcs hackers don't have to be bothered about whatever they
>>never use.
>    The patch definitely has a use -- as said above.

Ok, so you think it should be still in mcs codebase, even though
it never improves mcs itself, right?

Atsushi Eno