On 11/02/2012 17:21, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Martin schrieb:
> However, if the person, who founds it has the ability to add a note,
then he can also immediately correct it. Knowing it is misleading,
does imply knowing what it was meant to say. So rewording the existing
content should be possible.
In general this is not correct. If I see that variables mentioned in
the documentation do not exist in the source I don't know
automatically which variables to replace them with (if any). Or when I
tested things and find that it does not behave as mentioned in the
documentation I also don't know how it's meant to work.
And a comment/note like "[What]" or "[Really]" Does improve that?
If anything more meaningful can be put into a note, then the person can
also write it proper into the doc.
If your tests shows that it is incorrect. Well incorrect => delete.
What good is "foo does blah blah [this is wrong]" over an empty entry?
Anyone who needs the old/outdated/wrong text, still finds it in SVN
> If he person is not sure, about it being misleading or not, but
believes it might be. Then better ask first before adding a note
You know that this is impractical if you need to wait for an answer
each time you stumble over errors. What happens if no one has an
answer (within a given time)?
I do the same from time to the, if I try to implement something, and
don't understand something I need for it. Or don't know something else.
If no one answers:
Well what good is a note then, if it is meant to indicate some one needs
to fix it. No one ever will (or they would have answered)
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
