Re: gtk-doc confused about symbols

[Matthias Clasen <matthias clasen gmail com>]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:14 AM, Stefan Kost <ensonic hora-obscura de> wrote:
> David Nečas schrieb:
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:23:14AM +0100, David Nečas wrote:
>>
>>> Should the parser really consume this?
>>>
>>> /**
>>>  * Adds a subscription to be monitored.
>>>  */
>>>
>>> The first line is not an identifier followed by a colon, so it cannot be
>>> a symbol documentation.  Or is such a vague matching necessary for some
>>> legacy documentation?
>>>
>>
>> I mean something like this (I would even remove the warning about
>> comments where we cannot find a symbol because if there is no symbol the
>> comment is not intended for our consumption).
>>
>> Index: gtkdoc-mkdb.in
>> ===================================================================
>> --- gtkdoc-mkdb.in    (revision 665)
>> +++ gtkdoc-mkdb.in    (working copy)
>> @@ -3397,7 +3397,7 @@
>>               $symbol = $1;
>>               #print "SECTION DOCS found in source for : '$symbol'\n";
>>               $ignore_broken_returns = 1;
>> -         } elsif (m%^\s*([\w:-]*\w)\s*:?%) {
>> +         } elsif (m%^\s*([\w:-]*\w)\s*:?\s*$%) {
>>               $symbol = $1;
>>               #print "SYMBOL DOCS found in source for : '$symbol'\n";
>>           }
>>
>>
> Matthias, how does this sound. We take anything that is one word
> followed by a ':' or not as a symbol and I remove the warning about
> "Symbol name not found at the start of the comment block.".
> We should probably also only look for the symbol name before anything else.
>
> Or would yo like to keep it as it is and turning the /** into /* comments?

Having that warning sounds good. I also regularly remove the extra *
from stuff thats not supposed to be a doc comment, but thats an uphill
battle and new ones keep crawling in...