At 14:18 on 07/18/2002 PDT, "Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tanton Gibbs:
> # So, my final question is: should .dev files be plain text or POD?
>
> My vote is for pod. pod is close enough to plain text that I don't see
> why it shouldn't be i
Tanton Gibbs:
# So, my final question is: should .dev files be plain text or POD?
My vote is for pod. pod is close enough to plain text that I don't see
why it shouldn't be in it.
--Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
@roles=map {"Parrot $_"} qw(embedding regexen Configur
Ok, I would like to try and summarize what should be done for .dev files
1.) .dev files should not be used to describe individual
functions. Instead, the .c file that contains the function
should be used.
2.) .dev files should contain the sections as mentioned in PDD07.
3.) .dev files
For what it's worth, I agree. I think that when your documentation is
tied to the structure of your source files, it only makes sense to put it
IN the source files.
I don't think you can do literate programming half-way. While I don't
think literate programming is the right thing to do to p
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 11:13:58PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 10:38:47PM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > One of the reasons I used numerical accuracy as an example was because
> > in Perl 5, Nick's mini-essay on his stirling work *is* buried somewhere
> > in the middle
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 10:38:47PM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> One of the reasons I used numerical accuracy as an example was because
> in Perl 5, Nick's mini-essay on his stirling work *is* buried somewhere
> in the middle of the 10,000 line sv.c, and thus probably hasn't been seen
> by most pe
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 01:42:17PM -0700, John Porter wrote:
>
> Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > I think the purpose of the .dev files, as laid out in
> > docs/pdds/pdd07_codinstd.pod, is a reasonable one.
> > Here's an edited excerpt: . . .
>
> (Thanks, Andy.)
>
very recently I wrote:
> ... fine. Whatever.
People, if I'm coming across with a nasty or petulant tone,
I sincerely apologize. It's really not what I was going for.
jdp
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://aut
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 03:56:39PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> In practice, what we need is a supporting culture and infrastructure to
> make it most likely that useful documentation will get written and be
> in a place you can find it.
> Obviously, in practice, judgment will be needed for any
Andy Dougherty wrote:
> I think the purpose of the .dev files, as laid out in
> docs/pdds/pdd07_codinstd.pod, is a reasonable one.
> Here's an edited excerpt: . . .
(Thanks, Andy.)
Well, given that definition of the purpose, I must
persist in my opinion that the proper place fo
buys us.
Obviously, in principle, documentation could go anywhere, assuming it
actually gets written.
In practice, what we need is a supporting culture and infrastructure to
make it most likely that useful documentation will get written and be
in a place you can find it.
I think the purpose of the .de
Brent Dax wrote:
> Do you really want to see a ten-page discussion of hashing
> algorithms and why the current one was chosen in the middle
> of classes/perlhash.pmc?
I guess that wouldn't bother me as much as it might bother
some other people.
> *That's* the sort of th
middle of
classes/perlhash.pmc? *That's* the sort of thing the .dev files are
for, not API documentation. I agree that API docs should be in the
source file, but not much more than that.
--Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
@roles=map {"Parrot $_"} qw(embedding regexen Configur
That's a good point. Perhaps the .dev file are superfluous.
If that is the case then all we need to do is change the .c file
header to contain the POD comments and then
intersperse POD in the code as Andy did. Then
we can eliminate the .dev files and replace them with
a utility that will
Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> . . . That saves a person digging through
> the .c file to find what they are looking for.
> Perhaps we could automatically update the .dev
> file with the POD found in the .c file?
As someone else has already said, a better place
for the .dev information might be inside t
riginal Message -
From: "Andy Dougherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Perl6 Internals" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 1:35 PM
Subject: [PATCH] .dev files.
> I'm happy to see new documentation, including the .dev files, appearing
> in p
I'm happy to see new documentation, including the .dev files, appearing
in parrot. However, I do have a small concern that we not set ourselves
in a position of maintaining multiple copies of the same information.
To be specific, I looked at byteorder.dev and noted a listing of al
17 matches
Mail list logo
