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.)
>
> Well, given that definition of the
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 for that
kind of d
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, John Porter wrote:
> As someone else has already said, a better place
> for the .dev information might be inside the .c
> file itself.
> I for one find the separation unnatural,
> uncustomary, and de-sync-prone.
> Frankly I just don't see what it buys us.
Obviously, in princ
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 thing the .dev files are f
John Porter:
# 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 in
allow viewing of only the POD information.
Tanton
- Original Message -
From: "John Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Perl6 Internals" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] .dev files.
>
> Tanton Gibbs w
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
Yes, after looking at this, I agree with Andy (and don't worry I don't think
you're picking on it,
I picked a small file so we could play with it until we found what we liked)
that it is a maintenence
headache to duplicate all of the functions.
However, I do think it is nice to be able to look at
13 matches
Mail list logo
