That's the kind of flag I was looking for. Thanks.
> The official policy for the Closure Linter is that we will allow only the
> jsdoc tags that are in the Google JavaScript Style Guide. Internally if we
> get a request for a new tag to be supported, we generally ask that it be
> added to the style guide first. In practice, we will also allow any tag that
> is explicitly supported by the Closure Compiler.
> As for our use of JsDoc... we've certainly deviated from the JsDoc toolkit
> and today don't by default support using all the tags of the JsDoc toolkit.
> It's certainly at our discretion to not use certain tags if we don't want
> to, and in the case of our style guide... discouraged is strong enough that
> we don't allow discouraged tags by default (though there are
> workarounds I'll talk about later). As for tags that we've added like
> @protected, they are generally there to work in conjunction with our other
> tools like the Closure Compiler which uses those annotations as part of its
> own system of checks.
> As for as putting all JsDoc toolkit tags in non-strict mode, I doubt we
> would do that by default. The default mode of the Closure Linter is supposed
> to enforce the Google style guide, which includes not using some of those
> tags, and strict mode is actually meant to enforce the more stringent and
> less openly defined Closure style.
> That said there is already a solution to your problem. We have a
> --custom_jsdoc_tags flag that takes a list of comma separated tags that
> should be allowed. Using this flag you can add any flags you want, including
> @public and other official JsDoc tags. It also might be a good idea to add a
> flag or some other means of easily adding support (and in an ideal case even
> good checking of) all the JsDoc toolkit tags in one go. Feel free to file a
> feature request to track this issue if you'd like it.
> Thank you,
> Andy
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Steven Hall <stvh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just thought I'd expand on this as it is a bit misleading and my
> > initial post was probably a bit abrupt.
> > @public and tags such as this are defined as being "discouraged" in
> > the Google style guide, which is fine.
> > I'm just having a bit of trouble making the distinction between
> > "discouraged" and actually breaking the style rules (as the Linter's
> > error logs would suggest). I understand that using @public would cause
> > an error in the Google Linter because you wouldn't expect to see
> > Google code with these tags in them.
> > However other applications may use these tags, which is fine (they're
> > JsDoc after all!), but the Linter would throw an error.
> > I think it might be a nice feature to include Google's set of approved
> > tags under the 'strict' flag, and let the full range of JsDoc tags be
> > allowed when strict is not set. This way those who use the Linter and
> > also use the full range of JsDoc annotations reap the benefits whereas
> > Google's internal code (which I am sure uses the strict flag)
> > maintains the restricted set of tags.
> > On Sep 2, 1:36 pm, Steven Hall <stvh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > After getting back some errors telling me that @public was not a valid
> > > JsDoc annotation, I did some investigating into the causes.
> > > I found that the STANDARD_DOC set in statetracker.py seemed to only
> > > contain the JsDoc annotations defined in the Google Style Guide.
> > > This is fine and I'd imagine it to be so, as this is a Closure tool.
> > > However, it's clearly stated in the style guide that
> > > "We [Google] use JSDoc comments to document files, classes,
> > > methods and properties."
> > > It's a bit misleading that, despite Google supporting JsDoc, they only
> > > use a subset of the tags. Similarly, the @protected tag doesn't seem
> > > to exist in the JsDoc documentation (found herehttp://
> > code.google.com/p/jsdoc-toolkit/wiki/TagReference).
> > > Could we receive some clarification on whether Google uses full JsDoc
> > > documentation, or a subset of it? And if full JsDoc is supported,
> > > would it be possible to issue a fix so that the Linter reflects this?
> > > Thanks
