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 EB6CBA0562; Tue, 4 May 2021 12:44:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ECC440147; Tue, 4 May 2021 12:44:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B8240141 for ; Tue, 4 May 2021 12:44:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 779AE1963; Tue, 4 May 2021 06:44:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 04 May 2021 06:44:34 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= SlblJco/hRZkN/yw7RgvEPnV/mZNRcJ0gln6+qLvurs=; b=iClu/ae0MjSW87kw UFcQH4migjWjkzPtIQ2yHIoLFmn0LylkJBJes1vvOcjBRjag8BzjY/BwJcJC8jfH az88hrGQ56DWCT1xNWkvclIkp9JsL5rcaEXi0Mp536eqsauXVSJofM0dK7qpc+hh 4wHJ3hGZO7n/59ytZt3sggR6xzI2JnpNVN1Sa2O+G2BMHPpwSTBJKOzDVH1R5A5T iSXqsHI5vn6OCTH7jVPI1ZTBRxxM77s7vgTl2BXOuIjQ3Dk1h2pv2OpD43kb+YjE SYPW9HIOHBXtYMnBQTgL+3yuISqDs0CcU4iwhk+tpbr1vq9KfwmU8JKpUxisxmdV MJVV8w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=SlblJco/hRZkN/yw7RgvEPnV/mZNRcJ0gln6+qLvu rs=; b=bInAqzxHbFQcoRdVoK2Xkl1tIfHJKmrKAi35FltSISea2IO51eSVJUNOf G74tRTxBVga99vxLUq/m3rSqBmWAA6hWPR5ezlgiq3/IKSvgAM2XXLxwYyCH2Til kFXIkWjIpR7xf7/1upI1u2+q/D26ESbgxJVInW3gvhl/Xu0DAqZRlMTEvwS6sp6x uc0o41dMe0X9b92XGCXaF7ur987/8ZM4cHXn3LML9ulx6JBqPRUAmzAJJvw1Yu2A vjKrKAGg1OD492NRYruzx6SP5Fz36x8rJotH/pOWP0N0+6o0cV67wI140B/9XDeT VD8N+7IgupC/kspEGHNRlWvDsyXMw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdefiedgfeegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 4 May 2021 06:44:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Conor Walsh , "Burakov, Anatoly" , Ferruh Yigit Cc: john.mcnamara@intel.com, david.marchand@redhat.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 04 May 2021 12:44:30 +0200 Message-ID: <3962445.YuhGqRbsoE@thomas> In-Reply-To: <2fee2b5d-704d-212f-96cd-086e551e67c4@intel.com> References: <20210421091146.1384708-1-conor.walsh@intel.com> <2990415.rrcYuhbhSC@thomas> <2fee2b5d-704d-212f-96cd-086e551e67c4@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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" 04/05/2021 12:35, Ferruh Yigit: > 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. So you assume the comment is only for doc extraction? I think it can be a real comment, otherwise we'll need to have 2 lines: 1 for doc extraction, 1 for code comment.