You're right; I just wasn't looking in the right place. Sorry for the noise.

bill

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Johan Sundstr�m (f�ngar heffaklumpar) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote:

Tried this yet?

@module System

@module PAM

...docs here

@endmodule

@endmodule

I think that should be documented in the refdoc docs we already have, but I don't have the time to check it at the moment.

/ Johan Sundstr�m (f�ngar heffaklumpar)

Previous text:

...

2003-12-03 22:57: Subject: C Autodocs

---

I've run into what appears to be a limitation in the C autodoc extractor. The problem is that I want to have documentation in a module for a non-root module, such as System.PAM.

Currently, that's not possible, and it failes with the following error:

DocParser error: "@module: expected module name, got " System.PAM"" Tools.AutoDoc.DocParser.AutoDocError(SourcePosition(File: pam.cmod, lines: 60..60), "DocParser", "@module: expected module name, got " System.PAM"")

Is there another way to do this, or does it require a change to the extractors? What would it take? I'm not familiar enough with the extractors to know where to begin (it looks some real monsters live in the code).

If it were possible, would i still be able to add extra docs for the Pike portion? I don't think it would be as useful to have a little line about the pike module inheriting ___PAM or such.

Any thoughts?

Bill

/ Brevb�raren