Re: Warning in XML build phase

[Stefan Kost <ensonic hora-obscura de>]

Am 30.10.2010 14:39, schrieb Emmanuel Pacaud:
> Hi Stefan,
> 
>> If you don't put e.g. LsmMathmlRadicalElementClass, gtk-doc naturally expects
>> you to document it :)
> 
> Thanks a lot for your answer. I've fixed lasem and get rid of all the
> warnings.
> 
> I think the warning message doesn't explain clearly what's wrong, and
> doesn't help to fix them. And I don't get the point of such warnings.
> The content of foo-undocumented.txt should be enough, no ?

The point of the warning is to say, that something is expected to be documented,
but it is not. The warning can probably be improved, but might become a bit
longish. I could add it to the FAQ also.

> 
> Also, the sections file was mostly autogenerated. It would be better if
> at least the FooClass structures are automatically placed in the
> Standard subsection.

If you want to use an autogenerated section file, you need to document standard
parts right now. I take patches for smarter section.txt generation. Anyway the
plan is actually to get rid of the file and just use yet-another keyword in the
docs to tell if a symbol should be part of a specific section (as an exception
for not in the current section).

Stefan

> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Emmanuel.
>