Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change

Re: Documenting non-public OO components

by siracusa (Friar)
on Sep 07, 2005 at 02:26 UTC ( #489748=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Documenting non-public OO components

I recently faced a similar problem: methods that are meant to be used by subclasses, but not by "the public." You can see my solution on CPAN. I created a separate "PROTECTED API" section, and I explained what I meant by "protected" in the "DESCRIPTION" section. I'm not particularly happy with this solution, but at least it's explicit.

  • Comment on Re: Documenting non-public OO components

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Documenting non-public OO components
by creamygoodness (Curate) on Sep 08, 2005 at 00:45 UTC

    I may end up doing something akin to that. Since Plucene is a large library, I can put the explanation in one central place (probably the main module), then hew to the convention elsewhere. That's way better than what I was considering before; it's nice to see your example.

    Marvin Humphrey
    Rectangular Research ―

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://489748]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others surveying the Monastery: (4)
As of 2022-12-03 23:05 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found