Re: BUG in VB.NET XML comment engine?


>> I would agree that the VB behaviour is probably more logical, but this
>> does not mean that C# is wrong...
> I didn't say one is right & one is wrong, I stated one seems "correct"'
> and one seems "incorrect", (NOTE the quotes & the word seems). In other
> words its subjective! Is the glass half empty or half full?

I agree whole-heartedly.

>
>> According to the 'official' source (Ecma C# 2.0 spec, Annex E), Also the
>> specification states "The documentation generator must accept and
> Ah! There's the rub!
>
> We are quoting the C# spec in reference to VB!
>
> Repeat after me: VB is *NOT* C#. ;-)

I didn't say it was... What I was trying to point out is that the VB
behaviour is specifically excluded by the C# spec; The C# team couldn't
introduce it without a breaking change...

I would note however that although VB is not C#, it is copying an already
established mechanism for the xml docs, so consistancy may have been
desirable :-)

> NOTE: The official VB spec is ambiguous also:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=6D50D709-EAA4-44D7-8AF3-E14280403E6E&displaylang=en
>
> I hope you realize I was pointing out that the VB & C# documentation are
> both ambiguous about the matter. This ambiguity obviously does not prove
> or disprove the matter either way.

I wouldn't say the C# spec is ambiguous
"The documentation generator must accept and process any tag that is valid
according to the rules of XML."

Not much room for ambiguity there! Even if the tag is semantically wrong, C#
must pass it :-)


As I see it, the problem with the VB implementation is that, when a
"suspect" documentation tag is found, it ignores the *entire* comment block.
So if you do anything VB considers wrong, you get no documentation
whatsoever !

IMHO, a compiler warning for the problem tag, and ignoring that specific tag
only, would have been sufficient...



Kevin


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BUG in VB.NET XML comment engine?
    ... Aren't 'standards' grand:) ... > specifically included by the C# spec either. ... Even if the tag is semantically ... This ambiguity obviously does not ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
  • Re: BUG in VB.NET XML comment engine?
    ... specifically included by the C# spec either. ... Even if the tag is semantically wrong, ... This ambiguity obviously does not prove ... | "The documentation generator must accept and process any tag that is valid ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
  • Re: DEFSTRUCT and lexical environment
    ... |> I believe any alleged ambiguity in the spec is amply resolved in the ... The fact that experienced Lisp programmers, ... The fact that your interpretation of the spec violates the principle ... of referential opacity of included structure definitions, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: ExternProto relative paths Contact vs Cortona
    ... they do not reflect the viability of the actual spec prose. ... I don't see the ambiguity that you claim exists in the ... interpretation that gave rise to EXTERNPROTO test 8 in the NIST tests. ... The VRML97 text says now what it said in 1997. ...
    (comp.lang.vrml)
Loading