Qt-jambi-interest Archive, February 2007
Javadoc is incomplete
Message 1 in thread
Hi
It seems that the javadoc delivered with qtjambi beta is incomplete. A
lot of methods contain no text at all. (E.g, QDate.fromString(String,
String)).
Unfortunately the search in the mailing list archives does not work
currently. I also searched on the web but a didn't find any hint, that
another user has the same problem....
Can anybody tell me, why the javadocs are not complete?
Thank's for your help.
Message 2 in thread
Yes, I fully agree with this. We are also missing parameter names in the
argument lists. They
can be really helpful when trying to understand what's going on in a
particular method. Only
parameter type appears when I type Ctrl-P in IntelliJ.
Regards
Helge F.
Michael Christen wrote:
> Hi
>
> It seems that the javadoc delivered with qtjambi beta is incomplete. A
> lot of methods contain no text at all. (E.g, QDate.fromString(String,
> String)).
> Unfortunately the search in the mailing list archives does not work
> currently. I also searched on the web but a didn't find any hint, that
> another user has the same problem....
> Can anybody tell me, why the javadocs are not complete?
>
> Thank's for your help.
>
>
>
Message 3 in thread
Helge Fredriksen wrote:
> Yes, I fully agree with this. We are also missing parameter names in
> the argument lists. They
> can be really helpful when trying to understand what's going on in a
> particular method. Only
> parameter type appears when I type Ctrl-P in IntelliJ.
>
Most method signatures should have correct argument names in the beta.
As far as we are aware, the only exceptions to this are functions where
the argument names are not specified in the original C++ header files.
In these cases, you will get an automatically created argument name such
as "arg__1".
Is this the issue to which you are referring? If so, then of course it
is a goal to provide proper argument names for these functions. We
cannot be completely sure exactly when we'll have fixed all cases where
this applies, however. This largely depends on the number of cases where
it occurs, but we'll do what we can.
-- Eskil
Message 4 in thread
Michael Christen wrote:
>It seems that the javadoc delivered with qtjambi beta is incomplete. A
>lot of methods contain no text at all. (E.g, QDate.fromString(String,
>String)).
>
>
[...]
>Can anybody tell me, why the javadocs are not complete?
>
>
For this particular method, it's probably a bug in the tool that
generates javadoc based on the original Qt documentation. I've made a
note of the problem. Thank you for reporting it!
If you are in immediate need of the documentation for this particular
method, the docs for its Qt equivalent is located at the following URL:
http://doc.trolltech.com/4.2/qdate.html#fromString-2
Note that a few methods and classes also lack documentation because none
is available currently. We strive to provide documentation for all
functions and classes, and the documentation will continue to improve,
just like everything else in Qt Jambi :-)
-- Eskil
Message 5 in thread
--- Begin Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm afraid there are a vast number of examples on non-named argument
lists. This, together with the fact that javadoc is completely missing
on several instances, makes a huge obstacle for getting to know the
Jambi API for us beginners.
I sincerely hope for a better quality control of this doc in the next
release.
Regards,
Helge Fredriksen
Eskil A. Blomfeldt wrote:
> Helge Fredriksen wrote:
>
>> Yes, I fully agree with this. We are also missing parameter names in
>> the argument lists. They
>> can be really helpful when trying to understand what's going on in a
>> particular method. Only
>> parameter type appears when I type Ctrl-P in IntelliJ.
>>
>
> Most method signatures should have correct argument names in the beta.
> As far as we are aware, the only exceptions to this are functions
> where the argument names are not specified in the original C++ header
> files. In these cases, you will get an automatically created argument
> name such as "arg__1".
>
> Is this the issue to which you are referring? If so, then of course it
> is a goal to provide proper argument names for these functions. We
> cannot be completely sure exactly when we'll have fixed all cases
> where this applies, however. This largely depends on the number of
> cases where it occurs, but we'll do what we can.
>
> -- Eskil
>
--- End Message ---
--- End Message ---
