Re: DOCBOOK: DocBook 4.0: ClassSynopsis

[Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>]

/ Christian Leutloff <leutloff@sundancer.oche.de> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:
| > / Christian Leutloff <leutloff@sundancer.oche.de> was heard to say:
| > | > <!ELEMENT ClassSynopsis - - (Modifier*,
| > | >                              (ClassName|InterfaceName|ExceptionName)+,
| > | >                              (ClassSynopsisInfo
| > | >                               |FieldSynopsis|%method.synop.class;)*)>
| > | 
| > | I like the definition. But I think that the inheritance is
| > | missing. There is no way to tell what's the name of the parent
| > | class. In C++ these are the class names following the ':' and in Java
| > 
| > I had imagined that it would be done with multiple classnames:
[...]
| > I admit this increases the processing expectations, but I think
| > this is a more flexible way of handling the variety of OO
| > languages. Or am I missing something?
| 
| hmm, it is possible to do it the way you describe, but is it natural??
| I suppose no. Why not add one or two additional tags that clarify one
| of the basic object oriented features!? Perhaps the naming conventions
| used in the UML could be used. UML is language independend.

What are the naming conventions of UML? Despite the fact that I keep
meaning to look into it, I haven't yet.

Is the following observation correct: there's no dispute about
the semantics for exceptions or interfaces, the only point of
contention in the current proposal is whether or not
superclasses need to be called out in some more explicit way
than order among siblings.

                                        Cheers,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | Always do one thing less than you
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | think you can do.--Bernard Baruch
Member, DocBook Editorial Board    |