On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 02:27, Gavin 'Beau' Baumanis
<gavinb_at_thespidernet.com> wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> As Edmund goes through the header files and finds things in the comments
> that he doesn't understand - there is always a nice succinct reply from
> "someone" that clears up his understanding of the comment in question.
>
> Would it not be appropriate to change the documentation to be the provided
> succinct response, so that it might be clear(er) for all who visit the code
> next time around?
Definitely!
Though, in this case, the doc-change is "@deprecated" and deletion of
the bulk of the text :-)
Cheers,
-g
>
> Gavin.
>
>
>
> On 19/04/2009, at 3:40 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 17:27, Edmund Wong <ed_at_kdtc.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>>>
>>>>> /** If not NULL, an open working copy access baton to either the
>>>>> * path itself (if @c path is a directory), or to the parent
>>>>> * directory (if @c path is a file.)
>>>>
>>>> This doc string is complete.
>>>> If 'access' is NULL, then it doesn't point to anything.
>>>> If 'access' isn't NULL, then it points to an open working copy access
>>>> baton.
>>>>
>>> Ah. Now I understand. 'to' is being used as a verb, right?
>>
>> Yes. As in "points to" or "opened to" or something like that.
>>
>> Access batons are associated with directories, which is why the
>> docstring clarifies the baton based on the path's kind.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -g
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1793385
>
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1824216
Received on 2009-04-20 14:33:52 CEST