This content has been marked as final. Show 4 replies
It's setup to work that way - today.
The expectation is that you would document your package members in the SPEC, not the BODY. This doesn't work if you have private package members. Does that adequately describe your scenario?
If not, what are you looking to gain by having the bodies included?
I am not sure I understand.
The option provides a nice way to document functions and procedures. I can see all the "code" that is the function or procedure. If I group all these functions and procedures into a package I lose the ability to see the "code" of the functions or procedures in the package.
I don`t understand why the process would not detail the code for the individual functions and procedures in the package in the same way it does for stand alone funtions or procedures.
Why would a facility to document a package not include the most important part and that is the code itself.....makes little sense to me but there must be a reason ?
I think the intention is to emulate javadoc behaviour which just documents the API. In the case of PL/SQL the API is the package spec.
And what if the package body is wrapped/obfuscated? Certainly we would not want to include that in the generated documentation.