This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: DocBook 4.0: ClassSynopsis
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:
> / Christian Leutloff <leutloff@sundancer.oche.de> was heard to say:
> | > <!ELEMENT ClassSynopsis - - (Modifier*,
> | > (ClassName|InterfaceName|ExceptionName)+,
> | > (ClassSynopsisInfo
> | > |FieldSynopsis|%method.synop.class;)*)>
> |
> | I like the definition. But I think that the inheritance is
> | missing. There is no way to tell what's the name of the parent
> | class. In C++ these are the class names following the ':' and in Java
>
> I had imagined that it would be done with multiple classnames:
>
> So the Java class:
>
> public class foo extends bar implements baz, moo throws x, y
>
> is documented as:
>
> <classsynopsis language="java">
> <classname>foo</classname>
> <classname>bar</classname>
> <interfacename>baz</interfacename>
> <interfacename>moo</interfacename>
> <exceptionname>x</exceptionname>
> <exceptionname>y</exceptionname>
>
> ...
>
> I admit this increases the processing expectations, but I think
> this is a more flexible way of handling the variety of OO
> languages. Or am I missing something?
hmm, it is possible to do it the way you describe, but is it natural??
I suppose no. Why not add one or two additional tags that clarify one
of the basic object oriented features!? Perhaps the naming conventions
used in the UML could be used. UML is language independend.
Bye
Christian
--
Dipl.-Ing. Christian Leutloff, Aachen, Germany christian@leutloff.de
http://www.oche.de/~leutloff/ leutloff@debian.org
Debian GNU/Linux - http://www.de.debian.org/
PGP signature