From: gwtmp01@...
Date: 2005-10-20T16:01:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Method annotation and anonymous functions


On Oct 20, 2005, at 12:14 AM, ES wrote:
> Oh please no! Annotations are, as can be inferred from the name,  
> comments on the
> code. Could we just keep these in the comment section? Then we will  
> have a tool
> which reads the documentation and can
>
> 1) Do RDoc-like external documentation
> 2) embed documentation in the code itself (in the objects or as  
> separate data)
> 3) do both 1 and 2 at the same time
> 4) do nothing if the user wants to disable it.

A couple thoughts.

For annotations to be manipulated via tools there
has to be a stable/standard syntax.  If the annotations appear
as Ruby comments then you'll have to invent some other parser to extract
information from the comments and the information won't be available at
runtime (no meta-programming based on annotations).

If the annotations are part of the Ruby syntax then the Ruby parser
and meta-programming tools can come into play.

In order to be useful across classes/gems/packages/authors there  
needs to
be some standard semantics associated with the annotations.  Otherwise
different authors will choose different meanings for the annotation  
names/identifiers.
This is true for annotations done in comments or as part of an extended
Ruby syntax.


Gary Wright