On 13/06/2011 13.54, steve donovan wrote:
Yes, of course. In fact I was about to suggest that ldoc could have a switch to allow private vs. public documentation generation option. Then add a @private tag to whatever entity you want not to appear in the API docs. The cherry on top would be that @private were followed by a keyword, to differentiate between different kind of "privateness".On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Lorenzo Donati <lorenzodonatibz@interfree.it> wrote:Of course not for building API documentation, but for "in-house" documentation. Sometimes it happens that a long module has to be refactored/changed/extended and some of its "private" local functions are to be reused (or made public).This is a good argument. I would suggest however that such private functions/tables/etc live in their own 'documentation namespace', e.g. 'Local Functions' so that the external user of the API won't be confused.
Then you could do, say (syntax to be designed better): ldoc -private to generate full documentation on internal stuff, or ldoc -private "utility,broken" to generate private docs only for items tagged as @private utility and @private broken
steve d.