Re: protected methods

P.S. Sorry for hijacking your thread, but I'm not sure you'll ever truly be rid of it as long as we keep throwing the wrong terminology around. If we're going to present ourselves as _javascript_ experts we should at least have enough respect for the language to use the correct terms..

How does that old programming saying go again? "When the only tool you have is a hammer the world is a nail.."

On 10/27/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Oh...If people are feeling like the code has finally caught up with documentation more or less you could just say that functions without doc parseable comments don't get displayed by default? Either that or have a special easy to use doc comment that marks a function as something to not auto doc.

If they don't see the function at all in the online docs I'd say that would be the overall easiest way to start them off with not calling the wrong functions.

On 10/27/06, Bill Keese <bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Guys, seems like you missed my point.  I wasn't trying to start yet
another conversation about nomenclature or about have _javascript_ isn't
java.  I'm just talking about the API doc and how we notate which
functions users are supposed to call, and which functions they aren't
supposed to call.
_______________________________________________
dojo-contributors mailing list
dojo-contributors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors

--
Jesse Kuhnert
Tapestry/Dojo/(and a dash of TestNG), team member/developer

Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. http://blog.opencomponentry.com

-- 
Jesse Kuhnert
Tapestry/Dojo/(and a dash of TestNG), team member/developer

Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. 
http://blog.opencomponentry.com
_______________________________________________
dojo-contributors mailing list
dojo-contributors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors