Re: Documenting non-public OO components

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 ― http://www.rectangular.com	[reply]

In Section Meditations