From: AdaMagica <christoph.grein@eurocopter.com>
Subject: Re: Ada documentation tools.
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:14:39 -0800 (PST)
Date: 2010-11-15T00:14:39-08:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c2c16ca4-9833-4947-a549-6de773ef78dc@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: s5adnQTW9suR_33RRVn_vwA@giganews.com
Hm, I'm perhaps going to stir up a hornets' nest.
I really cannot understand why anyone would like something like
JavaDoc for Ada code. Java lacks separation of spec and body, thus
JavaDoc is a kludge.
The Ada spec, if written properly, is already the documentation - and
if it isn't, such a tool cannot cure the situation.
I've read (not such a lot) of Ada code documented in this style and
always found that I prefer the Ada spec directly.
So what do you expect from such a tool that the Ada spec does not yet
provide?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-15 8:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-14 22:26 Ada documentation tools Peter C. Chapin
2010-11-15 8:14 ` AdaMagica [this message]
2010-11-15 9:49 ` Maciej Sobczak
2010-11-15 12:29 ` AdaMagica
2010-11-15 13:06 ` Maciej Sobczak
2010-11-15 14:25 ` AdaMagica
2010-11-15 14:56 ` Georg Bauhaus
2010-11-17 23:06 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2010-11-15 9:52 ` Georg Bauhaus
2010-11-15 11:40 ` Peter C. Chapin
2010-11-15 12:38 ` AdaMagica
2010-11-15 23:33 ` Peter C. Chapin
2010-12-20 13:02 ` Marco
2010-11-16 1:02 ` Marc A. Criley
2010-11-15 12:56 ` Niklas Holsti
2010-11-15 23:19 ` Peter C. Chapin
2010-11-15 9:47 ` Maciej Sobczak
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox