[development] Documentation proposal: Forms

[Larry Garfield]

I like this idea, including Jeff's extension.  (Forms that use 
system_settings_form() would probably not have @see tags.)  If there's no 
objection I'll try to do this while I'm busy moving things around for the 
page split stuff.  (Which I started with aggregator only to find that it's 
already broken beyond belief, so I get to fix it along the way.  Whee!)

On Saturday 14 July 2007, Jeff Eaton wrote:
> Two thumbs up on this. To clarify, this would apply to the 'builder
> functions' that directly assemble the form arrays. @see links would
> be used to connect the builder functions to their respective submit
> and validate handlers; only the builder functions themselves would
> use @ingroup form. It's a logical way to divide things, I think, and
> would make navigating around the API namespace a lot easier.
>
> --Jeff
>
> On Jul 13, 2007, at 8:26 PM, Earl Miles wrote:
> > I would like propose that Drupal 6 (and forward) adopts the
> > following documentation standard:
> >
> > For all functions that are meant to be used in as an argument for
> > drupal_get_form, we document them with @ingroup forms (note that
> > actual form code is documented via @ingroup form) and we put a
> > description of what the form is meant to be used for. That will
> > make it a little easier to for users to discover what forms are
> > available and find their way to the code that generates the forms.
> >
> > (Could also use volunteers to help apply documentation patches to
> > get this done).


-- 
Larry Garfield			AIM: LOLG42
larry at garfieldtech.com		ICQ: 6817012

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of 
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, 
which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to 
himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession 
of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."  -- Thomas 
Jefferson