[Mono-list] Monodoc format question

Duncan Mak duncan@ximian.com
22 Jul 2003 17:54:52 -0400


On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 15:59, Jaroslaw Kowalski wrote:
> Today the only way to do it is to parse Type/TypeSignature/@Value for
> "class", "interface", "struct". Shouldn't there be a more structural way to
> do it? An attribute, perhaps: Type/TypeSignature/@TypeKind with values like
> "Class", "Structure", "Interface", "Enumeration", ... would do it very well.
> Was it omitted on purpose?

This Monodoc XML format is based upon the XML documentation made
available by ECMA. A 'TypeKind' element is not available because the
existing ECMA docs don't have them either.

The format used by the Gtk# documentation project is a slightly altered
format that is based on the ECMA format. We added a RefType attribute to
parameters to help distinguish between ref and out parameters.

Since the current Gtk# monodoc browser is able to do distinguish between
the different kinds of Types, I don't think it's worthwhile to alter the
XML file once more. To find out how monodoc figures this out, see
ecma-provider.cs ( I think).

> BTW. What's the reason for having lots of MemberSignature[@Language='C#']
> all over the files? Signatures for other languages aren't provided. Why? CLI
> is all about multiple languages...

In the ECMA documentation, IL signatures are also available. I think
that's the reason why they have a Language attribute to distinguish
between the two.