[Uml-devel] Re: 'Bug-fix' in codegenerator

[Luis De la Parra]

> > according to our goal 'find the most bugs in the uml' I send you a patch
> > correcting the wrong documentation of the class attributes in C++ header
file.
> > I also removed the attribute name from the code or is there a special
reason
> > for writing it?
> 
> Does seem slightly over kill, and since operations don't have their name
> in the comment I've applied the patch.  Unless Luis disagrees.
> 

nope, it's ok with me not to have the names.
I havent really seen the doc generated by kdoc based on this code, but if it
is already clear what attribute / mehtod the doc is talking about, then we
don't need to repeat it. I guess it's just a matter of taste anyways

only thing is, as Jonathan said, to have it consisntent. If you like it
without the names, then no names and if you like it with names, then with names,
but for both: methods and attributes.

regards,

luis.


-- 
GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
http://www.gmx.net