On 13 févr. 2013, at 12:02, Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote: > >>> It is just a matter of writing documentation strings as you invent >>> new callbacks. Pretty much a no-brainer not needing any >>> organization. >> >> It is definitely a brainer, as it would require retroactively >> documenting 276 MAKE_SCHEME_CALLBACKs. It would take coordinated >> effort to get all of this stuff documented. > > You are missing David's point, I think. He wonders why you are coding > callbacks without writing a documentation string. >
Because when I started coding for the project, there was not a single use of MAKE_DOCUMENTED_SCHEME_CALLBACK whereas there are currently 276 uses of MAKE_SCHEME_CALLBACK. All my programming education has come from reading LilyPond source code, so I tend to follow the conventions therein. I would rather make a concerted effort where people decide on a style for documenting our API (standardizing function names, documentation style, etc.) and then we do it rather than doing a piecemeal job. Someone needs to lead this. Graham did this sort of thing for documentation a few years back and it was an excellent idea. The discussion could be organized in the same way as GOP and GLISS stuff. Someone who cares about this can organize it and I'd be happy not only to follow whatever standards are established but also help to document the 276 scheme callbacks in C++ that are currently undocumented. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
