On 18-12-2012 12:15, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote: > On Tue, 18 Dec 2012, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >> However, fpdoc documentation writing is a huge chore for me compared to >> writing in the wiki so I've decided it's more productive to get my >> documentation done on the wiki. > > A wiki is never documentation. It's an explanation - at best. No, a wiki is a way to store articles/text that people can read. What is in those articles is up to what you put in it.
Of course, a wiki has certain drawbacks - e.g. no structure and the ones you mention below. Remember paper documentation though? That has drawbacks, too, some of them similar to the wiki. > Usually (not targeting anyone here) it is sloppy, incomplete, not > maintained, > no verification of the up-to-dateness possible. Mostly agreed. In the same spirit: how up to date, complete and actually helpful is the fpdoc documentation? As for up to dateness: there is a history on the wiki, so you can check that. Your idea of building a (web) interface that lets people easily update fpdoc documentation and submit the result for approval by a dev and subsequent implementation makes a lot of sense. > Writing quality documentation IS a chore. There is no way around it. I agree.... but I was refering to the document format, not so much the content of the documentation. Having to fight with the fpdoc format where I get unhelpful help messages like Warning: Target ID of <link> in unit "zipper" is unknown: "<empty> is a bit too much for me. So I put my stuff on the wiki because it's much quicker to write and update. >> http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=23506 >> ... so if anybody is interested ;) > > I applied the patch, thank you ! Thanks a lot. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal