> Do we really need such generic stuff? ... IMO explicit is better than > implicit. Why not getting an error when a function, which is referred > from a reST-document disappears in the source? Those errors help > to maintain the consistency of documentation with source-code. That's a totally different problem. > I know, there are also use-cases where generic is very helpful (e.g. > create a complete API description from the header file, with just > one line in reST). And I know, that we have already generic e.g. the > "export" option of the kernel-doc directive. Exactly. But now you can either * use "export" or "internal" to get *everything* * list every single function, and get no warning when there's a function you didn't list This serves to help get a mixture of the two, to be able to group things but also document everything that got missed as a fall-back. johannes
