Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Request: "gopherjs doc" command #556

Closed
flimzy opened this issue Dec 20, 2016 · 7 comments
Closed

Request: "gopherjs doc" command #556

flimzy opened this issue Dec 20, 2016 · 7 comments

Comments

@flimzy
Copy link
Member

flimzy commented Dec 20, 2016

Having GopherJS-specific versions of 'go doc' and 'godoc' would be nice.

This could possibly help address the documentation issues mentioned here.

An effectively duplicate feature request already exists on godoc, to support build tag in the official godoc package. But until that's accomplished, supporting it here might be worth while.

Thoughts @neelance , @shurcooL ? If it's deemed a good idea, I may try to work on this myself.

@dmitshur
Copy link
Member

Related issue and PR:

golang/gddo#342
golang/gddo#343

Given that's done, can you elaborate what exactly are you looking for? What problem are you trying to resolve?

@flimzy
Copy link
Member Author

flimzy commented Dec 20, 2016

I guess I hadn't remembered all the details of those bugs/PRs, despite my involvement in them.

It does accomplish what I had in mind, by use of GOARCH=js godoc ....

@flimzy flimzy closed this as completed Dec 20, 2016
@flimzy
Copy link
Member Author

flimzy commented Dec 20, 2016

Maybe it would be worth considering making gopherjs doc run GOARCH=js go doc? I think similar proposals have been considered for other commands. I don't remember what conclusions were reached...

@dmitshur
Copy link
Member

Maybe it would be worth considering making gopherjs doc run GOARCH=js go doc?

That's worth considering, because it's very low extra maintenance cost and doesn't deviate us further away from normal Go.

We currently do that for gopherjs get only.

@flimzy flimzy reopened this Dec 20, 2016
@flimzy
Copy link
Member Author

flimzy commented Dec 20, 2016

I'll see about throwing together a PR for that then, since it does sound quite simple.

@dmitshur
Copy link
Member

Let's decide that we want to do this, since we're still on the "considering" stage. The implementation is indeed trivial.

@neelance What do you think about this?

@neelance
Copy link
Member

Sure, why not. It is useful and it adds no complexity.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants