[Laszlo-dev] @deprecated

[Lou Iorio]

so should I just do this for now:

* @keywords deprecated

so @deprecated doesn't show up in the html, and we
(meaning someone smarter than I) can fix it later?


On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:48 PM, David Temkin wrote:

> The word "deprecated", without the "@", is for public consumption,  
> along with an explanation as below.
>
> On Jun 4, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Lou Iorio wrote:
>
>> I'm not entirely sure, but I believe it ignores it.
>>
>> I was not sure if  "deprecated" was for public consumption, or just a
>> way of commenting the source. In other places I've seen it, a  
>> class or
>> method is also marked "private", so that doesn't show up in the doc.
>>
>> The files in question are all in trunk/WEB-INF/lps/lfc/services,  
>> and all contain
>> the text "xxx is a shortcut for newxxx, for example:
>>
>> LzAudio is a shortcut for LzAudioService. Use lz.Audio instead.
>>
>> where LzAudioService is a link to that page.
>>
>> On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:03 PM, P T Withington wrote:
>>
>>> It eliminates it from the html output, but does it somehow also  
>>> signal that the API being documented is deprecated?  I.e., does  
>>> the doc tool do something with the keyword, or just ignore it?
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> As a future improvement, it might be nice to have an @deprecated  
>>> that was something like:
>>>
>>> @deprecated [release version when deprecated] [what to use instead]
>>>
>>> but for now, the keyword option is sufficient.
>>>
>>> On 2008-06-04, at 15:45 EDT, Lou Iorio wrote:
>>>
>>>> Changing
>>>>
>>>> * @deprecated
>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>> * @keywords deprecated
>>>>
>>>> in the lzs source does indeed eliminate the @deprecated in the  
>>>> html output.
>>>>
>>>> Is this the behavior we want? If so, I'll make this change the  
>>>> singleton doc.
>>>>
>>>> Lou
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.openlaszlo.org/pipermail/laszlo-dev/attachments/20080604/750bf06f/attachment-0001.html