From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 20 Apr 93 17:08:52 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!cs.uiuc.edu!johnson@hplabs.hpl.hp.com  (Ralph
 Johnson)
Subject: Re: Documenting Individual Objects
Message-ID: <C5sKys.9qK@cs.uiuc.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

ron@bse.com (Ronald C. Schultz) writes:

>I am interested in tools and techniques individuals and organizations
>are using to document objects. There appears to be few, well-thought
>out and complete methods to articulate objects. Many of the existing
>methods (e.g., OMT, Wirfs-Brock, ...) concentrate on documenting 
>object-interactions, but not on documenting the objects themselves.

The reason for this is that (in my opinion) documenting a single
class is easy, and is similar to traditional function-oriented
documentation, but documenting object-interactions is much harder.
For example, in Smalltalk I am perfectly happy with class comments
and method comments as documentation for a class, but they fall apart
as documentation for how objects work together.

> d) has sufficient internal
>consistency checks and heuristics to allow me to determine if the object
>is complete, consistent, and usable. 

I don't believe that this can be done just from the documentation.

-Ralph Johnson