Re: patch for g_nullify_pointer() and friends

[Tim Janik <timj gtk org>]

On 6 Aug 2001, Owen Taylor wrote:

> Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:
> 
> > On 6 Aug 2001, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > here's a new patch. I stayed with g_nullify_pointer() since I agree
> > > with Tim on this subject. The GObject additions are implemented as
> > > functions now and are documented inline. Someone should please check 
> > > that I found the correct words. The patch also adds a simple test
> > > case to testgruntime. There should probably be more tests there...
> > 
> > a couple minor things:
> > for gobject.c and friends, i'd like to avoid inline docs, so please
> > add the docs to docs/reference/gobject/tmp/gobject.sgml.

> Please, can we go to inline docs for GObject? They help a _lot_
> in making sure that when you add an API point, you document
> it, and when you change an entry point, you update the docs.
> Something that doesn't seem to be happening in GObject.

the reason for GObject having lesser docs is not at all related
to them being inlined or not. it's a matter of me having the time
to do them (and implementation has higher priority here) or
someone else volounteering to provide some (that i'd go over,
fixup and commit then). Eric Lemings has helped me out here for
a while, unfortunately he stopped sending in docs at some point
(not that the stuff to cover in those docs would be exactly easy).

the reason i do not want them to be inlined there is that i need
to find my way through the sources which is hard enough already,
the last thing i need between thread-lock and reentrancy constraint
maintenance code are huge, comparatively unrelated comment blurbs
explaining basic concepts. don't read this wrong as "tim doesn't
want API docs", i just do not want them in the *.[hc] files
which are huge enough already.

> 
> Regards,
>                                         Owen
> 

---
ciaoTJ