I'm still catching up on backlogged mailing list mail here, but just to
try to be helpful-
Like many folks who lurk on this list, I have limited time to do detailed
work on parrot internals, much as I would like to.
But I am always excited when there's an opportunity to do simple, menial
task
> Melvin Smith wrote:
> > What parts particularly bug you? Maybe we can address a few.
>
> Well, basically, AFAICT, virtually none of the parrot code
> is adequately documented. So, pick a random entry point. :-)
First, you have to understand that what you are saying is quite
inflammatory, regar
Melvin Smith wrote:
> What parts particularly bug you? Maybe we can address a few.
Well, basically, AFAICT, virtually none of the parrot code
is adequately documented. So, pick a random entry point. :-)
But this is why I'm not suggesting that someone drop what
they're doing and going in and do
At 01:37 AM 7/12/2002 -0700, John Porter wrote:
>I have to say that I am extremely disappointed at the
>paucity of internal documentation.
push @melvins_list_of_disappointments, $johns_disappointment;
>I know this is going to be extremely painful for some of you
>hackers... consider it a chance
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, John Porter wrote:
[...]
> And I don't wanna hear the same old b.s. "patches welcome".
> It is incumbent on the person who writes the code to include
> his own commentary. Of course, if someone else who *already*
> understands the code wants to remedy here and there, fine.
W
I have to say that I am extremely disappointed at the
paucity of internal documentation.
One of the goals of the p6 rewrite is to make the code
more accessible for maintainers who will come along later.
This cannot happen without good, substantial internal
documentation.
And I don't wanna hear
