[Mono-list] Re: [Mono-hackers-list] Re: Patch for mcs
Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:39:50 +0900
> However, the Documentation part would be standard. The only
> extension that I need is that I want raw string and not XMLElement.
To avoid pointless discussion, I just renamed my Documentation to
DocComment (and moreover, now my patch does not hold XmlElement).
So now we can discuss your patch as a standalone one.
> The reason is "/doc" is a standard switch thought about being
> provided in mcs as well. My patch provides basic infrastructure to it.
> Only that it does not generate and XML-file or validate or create any
I cannot understand why your patch could be infrastructure for /doc
switch. At least for XML documentation my patch will never use your
code block, since it has many more required checks. Or should I use
your codebase? Is it better choice?
It makes sense if you mean that your patch is infrastructure for the
functionality that is activated with your /mcsdoc-whatever switch.
>>other mcs hackers don't have to be bothered about whatever they
> The patch definitely has a use -- as said above.
Ok, so you think it should be still in mcs codebase, even though
it never improves mcs itself, right?