Exposing API docs

[ghost]

Hi there,

I was just thinking ... wouldn't it be an idea to typedoc each registered definition, and add that information to the (yet to be completed) registry? That way, developers can quickly look up the type signature of a function, and see which (sometimes hidden) type names are used.

[demurgos]

Most of the definitions I've seen already add comments with the related doc. I think formatting it a bit (adding @param <nam> and @returns) could be encouraged. Even if there are already lots of definitions, the project is still young so it could be possible to promote it.

I don't really know if it's should be mandatory, but it's definitely looks like a good thing (in the end, both typedoc and typings want to provide some meta-data about the code).

[blakeembrey]

I love the idea. I need to get around to getting typedoc updated though. Aside from that, it would be nice to have. Individual definition repos could definitely generate docs and I think registry items would be an awesome 👍 if we build a website 😄

[ghost]

Haha indeed if there is a website. Glad you like the idea 😄 I'd love to help - if you need any help - but I probably won't be available until the upcoming summer.

[blakeembrey]

@samvv Of course, that would be amazing 😄 I'd love to put together a beautiful site that helps people use TypeScript definitions.

[SomaticIT]

👍

1. I think it could be really helpful.
2. It could create an awesome visibility for typings.

[SomaticIT]

Just to let you know :

We built a module which generates jsdoc comments based on TypeScript definitions files (.d.ts).
It automatically adds types to jsdoc and provide a simple template to display correctly special tags.

ts2jsdoc | Website | Source
Samples :

• node.js typings
• typescript 1.4 typings

The project is outdated (works with TypeScript 1.4) and we looks for volunteer to upgrade the project to TypeScript 1.8+.

Is anyone interested ?

Thanks.

[ghost]

@SomaticIT Nope, sorry. I'm sticking with TypeDoc. Wish you good luck with the project, though.