Re: Showing local functions in NSEDoc

[David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com>]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:17:30PM -0500, Ron wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:13:06 -0500 Kris Katterjohn <katterjohn () gmail com> wrote:
> > I agree here, but if simply not using "---" prevents the NSEDoc from
> > being generated (which was my understanding and also Patrick mentions
> > this above) then I think that's a good enough solution (since this is
> > NSEDoc syntax).
> >
> > I don't think NSEDoc system should behave this way: "the author writes
> > in NSEDoc format, but I should ignore what appears to be the author's
> > wishes if the function is defined as local" because viewed this way it
> > seems like the author is conflicted.
> >
> > Of course, if NSEDoc blatantly ignored the author or if it was always
> > generating docs for local functions without the NSEDoc "---" syntax
> > then I would be all for changing NSEDoc (but this isn't the case
> > AFAIK).
> True, that's another solution. 
>
> But it comes back to Patrick's comment, what if these functions are exposed another way in the future? Having proper 
> NSEDoc for local functions might be appropriate in some cases, especially if we want complete documentation (not just 
> for the interface), but it isn't something that should be on the main site, in my opinion. 
>
> I'm willing to go either way, though. I'm okay with removing the '---' on any function that doesn't need to be 
> documented on nmap.org. 

This is what I do when documenting local functions. I'm also in favor of
removing local functions from the NSEDoc. NSEDoc already has the
capability to do that built in--you just use the --nolocals option.

David Fifield
_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/