I'd be more interested with a package level doc than a class doc or test.

Package level doc is quite useful to outline how some things are working together, something which is quite hard to figure out except by reading external doc or inferring things by walking through the code or a running test.

Having the ability to read about a package would be very useful. Basically, this is what Java provides.

http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/tools/solaris/javadoc.html#packagecomment

Phil

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:45 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:

Hi all

I want something similar in the spirit to PythonDocTest https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html

I'm talking about

basename
�� "Returns the base of the basename,
�� i.e.
�� /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz'
�� / basename is '/'"

Pragmas do not work well i.e.,
basename
�� "Returns the base of the basename"
�� <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: 'gloops.taz'>

We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can easily parse because we need to improve
the use and discovery of the library.

I was thinking about

basename
�� "Returns the base of the basename"
�� "
�� '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename
�� >>> 'gloops.taz'
�� "

Do you have any idea?

I cannot not do anything and just complain that our methods are not that well documented.
We as a community should take this and build an super cool system.

I tried and defined >>> on Object to see if it works!

Object >>> aResultingObject
�� "If the method comment contains >>> then it is a pharo documentated test. We can check that it is true."

�� "
�� '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename
�� >>> 'gloops.taz'
�� "

�� ^ self = aResultingObject

Stef