From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31B34A0562; Tue, 4 May 2021 12:35:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B5340147; Tue, 4 May 2021 12:35:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796ED40141 for ; Tue, 4 May 2021 12:35:30 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: ZLPY5k1dYQCRxLpXrqkjpQi2YFw3xIyK0iv/V/9YeE4D0mCsLKCXu4DuerlfKxViqE5f/9Ve4Z a5dwgRToQPrw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,9973"; a="198036611" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,272,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="198036611" Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 May 2021 03:35:29 -0700 IronPort-SDR: uCw/dFeEnj3f2l73IymnlFrBXYhMOJFA7oMT76VsHyPZJ+ixAtqK8lqO4hkyxm2WjKb6NIiGAf Wqx3IoqqmkiQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,272,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="433222372" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.213.243.109]) ([10.213.243.109]) by orsmga008-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 May 2021 03:35:26 -0700 To: Thomas Monjalon , Conor Walsh , "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: john.mcnamara@intel.com, david.marchand@redhat.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org References: <20210421091146.1384708-1-conor.walsh@intel.com> <2242028.kHp4AaGxEa@thomas> <2990415.rrcYuhbhSC@thomas> From: Ferruh Yigit X-User: ferruhy Message-ID: <2fee2b5d-704d-212f-96cd-086e551e67c4@intel.com> Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 11:35:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2990415.rrcYuhbhSC@thomas> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc/contributing/documentation: add info about including code X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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.