From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4398 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 11:46:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4391 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 11:46:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 11:46:55 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA05743; Tue, 20 Jan 04 06:49:09 EST Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:46:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10401201149.AA05743@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: pinskia@physics.uc.edu Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01472.txt.bz2 But the comments from the beginning of each function is the *specification* of the function and not the *implementation*, this is where the documentation comes from. That's correct, so I think we're talking about two different things. The issue that was being raised was documentation *in the source* and it sounded like you were saying that the documentation specification of the function was derived from that of the implementation. So what *is* the documentation that's derived from this? If this is not true in your Ada sources, then you are not following the coding style and every patch should be rejected here forth until you or another Ada person fixes this. In Ada, the specification and implementation of a function are in two different files (or two different places in the same file for local functions) and the documentation for each is located at the corresponding location.