Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc/contributing/documentation: add info about including code

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 5/4/2021 10:59 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 04/05/2021 11:32, Burakov, Anatoly:
>> On 03-May-21 10:02 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 21/04/2021 11:11, Conor Walsh:
>>>> +  The following will include a snippet from the skeleton sample app::
>>>> +
>>>> +      .. literalinclude:: ../../../examples/skeleton/basicfwd.c
>>>> +        :language: c
>>>> +        :start-after: Display the port MAC address.
>>>> +        :end-before: Enable RX in promiscuous mode for the Ethernet device.
>>>> +        :dedent: 1
>>>
>>> I would prefer indenting the options with 3 spaces
>>> to make them aligned with literalinclude.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> +* ``start-after`` and ``end-before`` can use any text within a given file,
>>>> +  however it may be difficult to find unique text within your code to mark the
>>>> +  start and end of your snippets. In these cases, it is recommended to include
>>>> +  explicit tags in your code to denote these locations for documentation purposes.
>>>> +
>>>> +  This can be done as follows:
>>>> +
>>>> +  .. code-block:: c
>>>> +
>>>> +    /* #guide_doc: Example feature being documented. */
>>>> +    ...
>>>> +    /* #guide_doc: End of example feature being documented. */
>>>
>>> I think we can standardize this usage in a beautiful syntax.
>>> My proposal, using the scissor sign:
>>>
>>>      /* Foo bar >8 */
>>>      foo(bar);
>>>      /* 8< End of foo bar */
>>>
>>>      .. literalinclude:: foobar.c
>>>         :language: C
>>>         :start-after: Foo bar >8
>>>         :end-before: 8< End of foo bar
>>>
>>> Another idea:
>>>
>>>      /*~ Foo bar */
>>>      foo(bar);
>>>      /*~ End of foo bar */
>>>
>>>      .. literalinclude:: foobar.c
>>>         :language: C
>>>         :start-after: ~ Foo bar
>>>         :end-before: ~ End of foo bar
>>>
>>> Maybe we don't need any markup for the start line and keep it natural:
>>>
>>>      /* Foo bar */
>>>      foo(bar);
>>>      /* end: Foo bar */
>>>
>>>      .. literalinclude:: foobar.c
>>>         :language: C
>>>         :start-after: Foo bar
>>>         :end-before: end: Foo bar
>>
>> Not having markup will 1) risk people accidentally "fixing" or otherwise 
>> modifying comments, and 2) has bigger potential for collisions elsewhere 
>> in the comments. While these aren't big risks, IMO it should be 
>> explicitly obvious that a comment is not just a comment but a marker docs.
>>
>> Having named tags like in the original proposal is the most explicit 
>> version of the above, which is why i favor it, but i think it's OK to 
>> have a lighter-weight syntax (e.g. with scissors for example), however i 
>> don't think it's a good idea to leave things implicit like your last 
>> suggestion.
> 
> I think the first comment is not only for code extraction,
> but also for code reader, that's why I think it's good to keep it natural.
> 
> 

+1 to Anatoly's comment, to make it obvious to the reader of the code that the
comment is used for documentation purposes and use explicit syntax for it.