On Tuesday 11 January 2011 13:37:09 Peter Soetens wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 January 2011 13:17:52 Tinne De Laet wrote:
> > Hey all, and especially Peter,
> >
> > From a user point of view I don't like the difference in specification
> > betwen Property/Attribute/Cnstant/Operation and ports:
> >
> >
> > // for operation
> > double changeParameter(double f) { ... }
> > this->addOperation( "changeParameter", &MyTask::changeParameter, this,
> > OwnThread) .doc("Change a parameter, return the old value.") .arg("New
> > Value", "The new value for the parameter."); and
> >
> > //for properties
> > std::string param;
> > this->addProperty( "Param", param ).doc("Param Description");
> > this->addProperty( "Palue", value ).doc("Value Description");
> >
> > While for ports:
> >
> > // for ports
> > InputPort<double> inPort;
> > this->ports()->addPort( "inPort", inPort ).doc( "documentation" );
> >
> > I would prefer to have the same syntax as for ports for operations,
> > properties, constants, and attributes.
> > I prefer this syntax since already from my header it is clear what are
> > the properties and operations.
> >
> > Can you give me a clue why you decided on the above syntax?
>
> Less syntax, less typing, less compilation errors. You need to change code
> at more places when the signature of an operation changes. For ports, we
> couldn't omit the InputPort<Foo> definition because of the read/write(Foo)
> methods we need to access.
>
> The 'old' syntax is still supported. So you can write:
>
>

> //Header:
> Operation<void(double)> myOp1;
> 
> //CPP file:
> // constructor initialisation list:
>   myOp1("name", &Class::Foo, this)
> // constructor body:
>   provides()->addOperation(myOp1).doc("The foo operation");
> 

This however does not solve the inconsistency ....
Would it not still make sense to this:

Property<double> value;
this->properties()->addProperty( "Palue", value ).doc("Value Description");

This only involves the extra typing of Property< >.
I just do this request because in the last couple of days at least 3 people in
the office have been struggling with this syntax difference: the above syntax
compiles (so as you claim indeed fewer compilation errors).... but then you
have a Property< Property<double> >, which is an unknown type in the
taskbrowser .. and you cannot use it afterwards...
very confusing .......

>
> I don't think using the old syntax is really what you miss.
> I think
> automatically generating a doc-html-page for each component (similar info
> as the 'ls' command of a TaskContext) would solve your 'requirements'
> better. Similar on how ros generates documentation for each package.
This is indeed on my wish list :) and would be great for documentation!

However, I still like to have an overview of my component interface just by
looking at the header of my component, that's why I prefer to declare the
Properties, Operations, Ports in my header ... (although this might seem old-
fashioned.)

Thanks,

Tinne