[MonoDevelop] Should templates contain xml documentation ?

IBBoard ibboard at gmail.com
Fri Nov 12 15:28:13 EST 2010

A bit late to the party, but I'll throw my comments in :)

Having the comments seems pointless to me. What does it really gain us?
If people forget to document at the moment then I think that they're
likely to forget to document when the template is there. How many
default comment blocks would that leave?

I think that Bob Lang's suggestion was quite good:

> What I think would be useful would be for the template *not* to have
the documentation template by default, but for the editor to have an
extra command which will decorate the current method/class/whatever on
demand with an appropriate comment skeleton.

If we could have a command to say "Comment class and all public members"
then the user would be intentionally adding the comments and so would
presumably be going through and filling in values. They could do it now
by just hitting "///" before all of the public members, but one command
instead of repeated key presses would be a time saver. It'd also save
you going through and going "public? no, next. public? no, next..." and
would let you skim for the more obvious comment blocks.

I'm not quite sure I understand the intention of Anirudh's comment.
Depending on what was meant then it could be good or it could be bad.
Documenting abstract methods to say "this method does X" so that people
know what to implement is good, but excessive boilerplate code and
comments would seem bad.

More information about the Monodevelop-list mailing list