Re: help foo, with empty function foo

[Rik]

On 06/24/2013 07:35 AM, address@hidden wrote:
> Message: 5 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:35:06 +0200 From: "John W. Eaton"
> <address@hidden> To: Carn? Draug <address@hidden> Cc: Octave
> Maintainers List <address@hidden>, Muhali
> <address@hidden> Subject: Re: help foo, with empty function foo
> Message-ID: <address@hidden> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 06/24/2013 04:21 PM, Carn? Draug wrote:
>> > On 24 June 2013 16:09, John W. Eaton<address@hidden>  wrote:
>>> >> On 06/24/2013 03:58 PM, Carn? Draug wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On 24 June 2013 15:53, Doug Stewart<address@hidden>   wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Juan Pablo
>>>>> >>>> Carbajal<address@hidden>
>>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Muhali<address@hidden>   wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> If foo.m contains only help text, e.g.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> % This is foo.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> then in ML 'help foo' displays that text while octave produces an
>>>>>>> >>>>>> error:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> error: help: 'foo' is not documented
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> I am not sure if this is a bug.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Octave has its own documentation syntax
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/doc/interpreter/Documentation-Tips.html#Documentation-Tips
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> I wouldn't say that not showing the documentation is breaking the
>>>>>> >>>>> code. But I am not sure
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> there was no documentation to show.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> There is documentation. Documentation is defined as the first block of
>>>> >>> comments that does not start by "Author" or "Copyright". It doesn't
>>>> >>> matter if its plain text or TexInfo.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> But apparently, it only looks for documentation if there's any Octave
>>>> >>> code in there at all.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> It works for me with 3.6.2.  What version are you using in which it 
>>> >> doesn't
>>> >> work?
>> >
>> > Then it's a regression. I'm using one of the 3.7.2+ versions (not sure
>> > from which revision it was built from, a couple of weeks ago). But I
>> > just tested in 3.6.2 and works there too.
> OK, I'll try to take a look at it.
>
> jwe
6/24/13

jwe,

It doesn't seem so mysterious.  Apparently the new parser does not
recognize EOF as being equivalent to a blank line for ending a
documentation block.  So adding an extra newline at the end of .mex files
will make the documentation visible.

--Rik