|
Probably not an options thing.
It just does not fill the return section.
The GhostDoc Comment editor shows:
Quote:
public List<playingcard> GetHandTrumpCards(
int TrumpCardID
)
Parameters
TrumpCardIDType: Int32
The trump card identifier.
Return Value
|
|
|
|
|
The return value is not uniquely named. A method may have several return statements, and the values may be expressions, possibly different expression for each of several returns.
The tool could of course create a list of all return statements. The same that you can obtain by a string search. I am not sure how useful that would be.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you say it works only for
return value;
|
|
|
|
|
I never used this tool, but OP presents an example where it doesn't catch his 'return lopc;', leaving only
in the 'documentation'.
I am one of those who likes to get out of here as soon as the job is done; I detest the 'single exit point' style that could increase the block nesting level by half a dozen or more. In other words: Some methods can have half a dozen or more return statements.
You might want to have them all listed above the method prototype; I think it messes it up. With several exits, the reason for leading to that exit is frequently far more essential than the exit value - especially if it is in the class of 'success' or 'failure'! Seeing four 'return failure' and two 'return success' in the documentation is not really informative. Seeing 'return lopc' makes very little sense until you have studied the actual code, seeing how lopc is built, but then you hardly need the documentation telling that lopc is returned!
If you use the template for filling in a brief explanation of what it takes to succeed, or in this case, what is the semantics of the subset of cards returned: Fine. I assume it applies to all the return statements, if there are several.
Also, those insisting on 'single exit point' must refrain from coding any exception that might propagate out of the method. That would be an exit not through that 'single exit point', so trusting that you can catch everything immediately before your single 'return' is fooling yourself.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No I did not, because I was not aware of it.
Thank will try it.
|
|
|
|
|
this processes existing comments.
it does not create the comments themselves.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
Of course it does, it needs the comments to convert them to document format. Which is what the OP asked for in his question.
|
|
|
|
|
This is not code documentation, these are just unnecessary comments  
|
|
|
|
|
Extremely necessary if you want your SPICE or ASPICE certification.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
|
|
|
|
|
If those comments/methods are in a class library those comments could be very helpful to folks using that library.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs. - Thomas Sowell
A day can really slip by when you're deliberately avoiding what you're supposed to do.
- Calvin (Bill Watterson, Calvin & Hobbes)
|
|
|
|
|
The autogenerated comments will just tell you what you already see from the name and types. Documentation is for the things you can't see directly.
Personally my preferce is not having the autogenerated comment, then you do not need to waste time finding out if it tells you anything or not.
|
|
|
|
|
I took this to be a framework for filling in you more descriptive comments, such as <param name="hand" />Set of cards currently held by 'bidder'
(I can imagine even more helpful explanations that this, especially if I knew more of the context.)
Without any explanation, just formatting the method prototype in a different layout, is meaningless.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
The crusade against comments wields a rusty pin and calls it a sword.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't triple clicking "/" in VS generate the comment block?
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
|
VS refuses return info as well for me.
And comment "Nons the trump cards." is pointless.
public static string NonTrumpCards(HandCards hand, int TrumpID)
{
return hand.GetHandExTrumpString(TrumpID);
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is installed now but I do not see a menu item or context menu item for starting it.
What do I miss?
|
|
|
|
|
Never used it myself, just looked good.
Graeme
"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee
|
|
|
|
|
|
And comment "Nons the trump cards." is pointless.
Not necessarily. Change the XML comment style to font color red, bold, and voila, you can scroll through your code with all information needed visible in the same place, same style.
Side note: My Delphi 7 maintenance mode has three colors, bold red for comments, bold green for strings and bold/normal gray for the rest, on black background. It is perfect to find where to modify the code.
|
|
|
|
|
From reading the question and replies to which the OP has also replied, I understand that the OP wants a tool to generate the xmldoc example given.
And the only question I have is what value this "documentation" has? It tells you nothing you couldn't already glean from the signature. It's "documentation" like this which drives the "no comments" movement - because this is just more reading material for the consumer - it does absolutely nothing to explain the why or the methodology of the decorated function. It will rot because it's been noise ever since it was introduced, so at some point, it won't tell you something obvious - it will just be a source of "WAT?!" for the reader.
I'm incredibly dismayed at people looking for tools to do this and write their unit tests for them. Are we even craftspeople any more? Do you consider yourself a creator, or a button-pusher?
------------------------------------------------
If you say that getting the money
is the most important thing
You will spend your life
completely wasting your time
You will be doing things
you don't like doing
In order to go on living
That is, to go on doing things
you don't like doing
Which is stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Davyd McColl wrote: And the only question I have is what value this "documentation" has?
Maybe a formal requirement?den2k88 wrote: Extremely necessary if you want your SPICE or ASPICE certification.
I have been working under coding standard regimes requiring the arguments to be repeated ("prepeated"?) above the function declaration in a formal syntax, regardless of certifications.
Mostly it has been so that if anyone asks for documentation of the source code, the company can proudly present a huge PDF document, split into main sections for each namespace, main chapters for the classes and sometimes each method has been given a separate page for describing its invocation interface and arguments.
All is automatically generated from the formatted comments. It is useful for nothing except that it allows you to state, without lying: "Of course we maintain full documentation of the source code".
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
