() Drew Adams () Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:05:04 -0700 (PDT) Having code does not preclude having comments. Having comments does not preclude having documentation. What precludes most results is the right combination of awareness and effort, which is in YMMV territory. Which is obvious by: [...] From my point of view: [...] My (likely lone) opinion remains [...] It sounds like the scanning program would do well to take options to control its selectivity, something like: -i, --inclusiveness N -- control what to include in the output; N is an integer from 1 (default) to 5: 1 -- "public" funcs, vars 2 -- 1 + faces 3 -- 2 + properties 4 -- 3 + private stuff 5 -- everything Alternatively, something like: -f, --flag ASPECTS -- include only ASPECTS in output; ASPECTS is a comma-separated list, with elements from: function variable face property ... ALL (same as all of the above) -p, --private -- also include "private" elements (those with "--" in their name) The latter gives more control, which i like, but anyway the point is to enable those who want to take a bite out of the doc coverage pie to specify their appetite. Then, ttn the lazy bum can run it w/ ‘-f function’ and j.r.motivated-hacker can use ‘-f ALL -p’. (Of course, what the Official Policy will be is another question. I think for this effort (increasing doc coverage), if we focus on clean mechanism, the need for lots of policy discussion will be reduced -- less need to leave /home, so to speak. :-D) -- Thien-Thi Nguyen GPG key: 4C807502 (if you're human and you know it) read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical) (not (via 'mailing-list))) => nil