Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-22 Thread L

 We've looked at the people on the mailing list many times, but we've
 never seen people sticking out their neck and actually doing something
 along these lines. It takes long-range commitment, which is probably
 what scares many people off...


I've volunteered to help, but I think there are too many conflicts with what I 
would
use to program a website versus the current system in place. All I heard was we
don't need any concepts or ideas, we need people to help But I did offer to 
help -
don't deny that.

This is why time after time I keep recommending more pascal users to make their 
own
websites. Many of us don't have the same website engines or choice of website
databases. Better 50 users create 50 high quality websites on Pascal than 50 
users
all arguing about what the engine behind the doc system is going to be.

We are discussing an open documentation system that does not require and SVN 
account
or patching. The whole idea of an open documentation system that does not 
require an
SVN account, is that you do not need to stick your neck in - you only need to
stick your pinky finger in!  You are proving my point by saying I must stick my
neck in .  I shouldn't have to stick my neck in. It should be one click 
shopping.
For updating the compiler code itself? Yes, that you should definitely have to 
stick
your neck in. That is more complicated, for sure.  It's got nothing to do with 
PR
right now, really. The popularity might come as a side effect to a good manual. 
But
I'm not saying it is the reason Pascal isn't as popular as C. i.e., I'm not 
pushing
PR here.. that's not what I'm getting at.

My only fear of building a documentation engine on my domain, is that I will 
reinvent
the wheel. I'd rather make improvements or suggestions to the current doc 
system in
place, so people don't have to run to 60 different websites to read different
documentation engines out there. It's not that I'm afraid of grunt work - I can 
throw
together a system - but I'd rather not if it will cause more harm, causing 
users to
run around to my doc site, freepascal's doc site, another doc site, and another 
doc
site, etc.

You do have to have discussions, before you implement something big like this. 
I'm
not just talking out my my fat mouth here. I'm honestly fearing that having 
more than
one documentation engine out there will cause some harm, instead of some good. 
That,
and of course I don't program in PHP any more, so I may not even be of help to 
the
current freepascal engine anyway (and last I looked, I couldn't see the PHP 
code on
SVN anyway - just html. Maybe I missed it).

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-22 Thread L




  We've looked at the people on the mailing list many times, but we've
  never seen people sticking out their neck and actually doing something
  along these lines.

I've looked at people in charge many times, but I've never seen those in charge
sticking their head out telling me directly, with real instructions how I can 
help,
along with my
SVN password, what the rule are with what I'm allowed to help with, etc.

All I've  (we've) seen so far is the people in charge criticising any incoming
suggestions or concepts. I'm no lazy man, I'm a grunt worker. I stick my neck 
in when
I have precise directions on how to and what I'm allowed to.  I think there are 
more
conflicts here going on then just people not sticking their neck in. Constantly
critisizing people for not sticking their neck in won't really help. Sending 
them an
email questioning what they would like to help, where their svn password is, 
under
what conditions , etc. will help.

At times I find the responses of the FPC lists negative rather than encouraging.

Let's have collabritive discussion with precise directions on where I and 
others can
help, in what programming languages, with what restrictions - rather than 
arguments
and quick judgements such as ahh, he won't help, otherwise he would have 
uploaded it
already.

Uploaded where? Under what circumstances? With what password? With what 
language? I'm
sorry, but it's not just as simple as a patch, with this documentation system. 
With a
compiler change, it is sometimes as simple as a patch. This is not a compiler 
change,
this one. This isn't a patch. Plus, I dont' see any way to make patches to the 
PHP
code anyway - as stated in previous mail regarding only seeing HTML on svn. 
Plus,
even if a patch were possible, I don't think it would be allowed in anyway - 
because
my suggestions have been determined as no-goes already. So if our discussion 
has led
us to the conclusion that we won't be implementing what I thought up, why 
bother me
doing any grunt work anyway? You see, you do have to have discussions before 
doing
grunt work - because if I would have done the grunt work, the patch of mine 
would
have been disregarded anyway!

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-22 Thread Michael Van Canneyt



On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, L wrote:


We've looked at the people on the mailing list many times, but we've
never seen people sticking out their neck and actually doing something
along these lines. It takes long-range commitment, which is probably
what scares many people off...


You do have to have discussions, before you implement something big like this. 
I'm
not just talking out my my fat mouth here. I'm honestly fearing that having 
more than
one documentation engine out there will cause some harm, instead of some good. 
That,
and of course I don't program in PHP any more, so I may not even be of help to 
the
current freepascal engine anyway (and last I looked, I couldn't see the PHP 
code on
SVN anyway - just html. Maybe I missed it).


You probably did. The main site is indeed a static site.

Only the directories html/bugs and html/contrib contain PHP code.
They are scheduled for rewriting in FPC. (in fact, you'll see the code
for the pre-PHP cgi website in those directories as wel)

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-22 Thread Daniël Mantione


Op Wed, 21 Dec 2005, schreef L:

 
 
 
 
   We've looked at the people on the mailing list many times, but we've
   never seen people sticking out their neck and actually doing something
   along these lines.
 
 I've looked at people in charge many times, but I've never seen those in 
 charge
 sticking their head out telling me directly, with real instructions how I can 
 help,
 along with my
 SVN password, what the rule are with what I'm allowed to help with, etc.

Our policy is that we give people SVN access after they have contributed 
code a few times. Perhaps it is a bit annoying, but we need to be a bit 
conservative here to prevent too many people messing with FPC's code. 
However, it is not very hard to gain SVN access, usually we are quite open 
to it.

 All I've  (we've) seen so far is the people in charge criticising any incoming
 suggestions or concepts.

We need to, not everything that can be done should be done, and a lot of 
proposals are about let's start from scratch and do it better.

 I'm no lazy man, I'm a grunt worker. I stick my neck in when
 I have precise directions on how to and what I'm allowed to.  I think there 
 are more
 conflicts here going on then just people not sticking their neck in. 
 Constantly
 critisizing people for not sticking their neck in won't really help. Sending 
 them an
 email questioning what they would like to help, where their svn password is, 
 under
 what conditions , etc. will help.
 
 At times I find the responses of the FPC lists negative rather than 
 encouraging.
 
 Let's have collabritive discussion with precise directions on where I and 
 others can
 help, in what programming languages, with what restrictions - rather than 
 arguments
 and quick judgements such as ahh, he won't help, otherwise he would have 
 uploaded it
 already.
 
 Uploaded where? Under what circumstances? With what password? With what 
 language? I'm
 sorry, but it's not just as simple as a patch, with this documentation 
 system. With a
 compiler change, it is sometimes as simple as a patch. This is not a compiler 
 change,
 this one. This isn't a patch. Plus, I dont' see any way to make patches to 
 the PHP
 code anyway - as stated in previous mail regarding only seeing HTML on svn. 
 Plus,
 even if a patch were possible, I don't think it would be allowed in anyway - 
 because
 my suggestions have been determined as no-goes already. So if our discussion 
 has led
 us to the conclusion that we won't be implementing what I thought up, why 
 bother me
 doing any grunt work anyway? You see, you do have to have discussions before 
 doing
 grunt work - because if I would have done the grunt work, the patch of mine 
 would
 have been disregarded anyway!

That is way too sceptical. Yes, you need to have discussions, if it is 
a good idea. However, if your proposal is to write an enchancement to the 
site, or a cleanup, or whatever it won't be taken so skeptically. 
Proposing features that already exist, like a commenting system, makes 
people skeptical, though.

Daniël___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-19 Thread L
 under the documents (who wouldn't?).

 The author, for one :-)

 The commenting system puts extra load on the server which I don't want.


Amazon.com has a patent on one click shopping, I believe. I think I know why.

Well, with the FindPart function, back 7 months ago.. I found an error in the 
docs
regarding the Result/Return value. I reported it - but was too lazy to submit a
patch. And guess what, the findpart error in the documentation is still there 
today,
7 months later.

Wait a minute - *lazy* is actually the wrong word. Forget I said lazy. I'm far 
from
lazy. I'm a hard worker. And yet my animal instinct still tells me that making 
a doc
patch via the current setup, or adding a comment via the current setup, is not
natural. My instinct, as an animal, is to leave the error in the docs and move 
on to
other things. It's not one click shopping.

My instinct, as an animal, when I arrive at the PHP website, is to correct the 
docs
if I see an error. It's one click shopping.

--
L505
Mammal

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-19 Thread Vincent Snijders

L wrote:

under the documents (who wouldn't?).

The author, for one :-)

The commenting system puts extra load on the server which I don't want.




Amazon.com has a patent on one click shopping, I believe. I think I know why.

Well, with the FindPart function, back 7 months ago.. I found an error in the 
docs
regarding the Result/Return value. I reported it - but was too lazy to submit a
patch. And guess what, the findpart error in the documentation is still there 
today,
7 months later.

Wait a minute - *lazy* is actually the wrong word. Forget I said lazy. I'm far 
from
lazy. I'm a hard worker. And yet my animal instinct still tells me that making 
a doc
patch via the current setup, or adding a comment via the current setup, is not
natural. My instinct, as an animal, is to leave the error in the docs and move 
on to
other things. It's not one click shopping.



But if you only leave a comment, it still isn't fixed in the source (of the 
documentation). This means next release still will contain, because the comments are 
not part of the distributed docs.


Vincent.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-19 Thread Michael Van Canneyt



On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, L wrote:


under the documents (who wouldn't?).

The author, for one :-)

The commenting system puts extra load on the server which I don't want.



Amazon.com has a patent on one click shopping, I believe. I think I know why.

Well, with the FindPart function, back 7 months ago.. I found an error in the 
docs
regarding the Result/Return value. I reported it - but was too lazy to submit a
patch. And guess what, the findpart error in the documentation is still there 
today,
7 months later.

Wait a minute - *lazy* is actually the wrong word. Forget I said lazy. I'm far 
from
lazy. I'm a hard worker. And yet my animal instinct still tells me that making 
a doc
patch via the current setup, or adding a comment via the current setup, is not
natural. My instinct, as an animal, is to leave the error in the docs and move 
on to
other things. It's not one click shopping.

My instinct, as an animal, when I arrive at the PHP website, is to correct the 
docs
if I see an error. It's one click shopping.


Amazon is a company which can add servers at will.

The FPC servers are paid out of our own pockets, so things as 'load' etc.
form a big restriction.

If we had a separate server 'docs.freepascal.org' then there was no problem.
But we don't, so 'one click shopping' is not an option at this point.

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-19 Thread Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
On 12/19/05, Michael Van Canneyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Amazon is a company which can add servers at will.

 The FPC servers are paid out of our own pockets, so things as 'load' etc.
 form a big restriction.

By the way I think this is missing a lot on Free Pascal.

You guys could start calling enterprises to support the project. Have
a meeting, present the project and then ask for hardware / money to
pay development. I know many project witch greatly benefited from
this.

I have some experience with this kind of thing and I can tell you that
this ins´t as hard as it sounds.

Felipe
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-19 Thread Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
On 12/19/05, Michael Van Canneyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 It's not so much the 'hard' that is the problem.

 As with the PR thing: The core developers really don't have time for this.
 It takes a lot of effort: prepare, go there (costs again money), follow-
 up. You need some kind of legal entity etc etc etc.

Would they like to have time for this?

Look at my experience. I work for the University of São Paulo. I am
not developing the Virtual Magnifying Glass
(http://www.braillevirtual.fe.usp.br/temporario/magnifier.png) as a
hobby, althought it is so much fun that I would. I am a *paid open
source developer*.

One of the guys that work with me called Microsoft and one of their
directors went to where we work to talk about another project we
develop. We didn´t even had to go there. We did not prepare a formal
presentation, we only had a reunion. He even offered software /
hardware to sponsor us! The same with Macromedia.

Companies like to have their names on projects with big visibility,
and that´s where the marketing thing comes.

You need to find companies interested in Pascal and companies
interested in Open Source and then ask them for support.

I would start with IBM. Many companies support open source. Google
does. HP does. Apache, the linux kernel, all started as free time
projects and ended up with paid developers.

If you guys wouldn´t like to code for Free Pascal as your main
activity perhaps you can ask the enterprises to hire someone else to
help. Similar to this is:

* Sending a propolsal for Google Summer of Code for them to pay
someone to help develop Free Pascal.

* Send a propolsal for IBM to pay propaganda for you as part of the
Linux on Power project http://www.linuxonpower.com/

etc, etc, etc, etc

 We've looked at the people on the mailing list many times, but we've
 never seen people sticking out their neck and actually doing something
 along these lines. It takes long-range commitment, which is probably
 what scares many people off...

I can even send propolsas for IBM / Google / etc for them on those
projects (althought I need you guys to formally support this things),
but reunions and things like that have to be done by someone from
inside. You can´t just say: I like free pascal and I would like you
to sponsor it. You have to be a developer to ask for that.

--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-19 Thread Jonas Maebe


On 19 dec 2005, at 14:28, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:


* Send a propolsal for IBM to pay propaganda for you as part of the
Linux on Power project http://www.linuxonpower.com/


That already happened, and thanks to that we now have a ppc64 version  
of the compiler.



Jonas
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-16 Thread L505


  Did you miss something?

  On the FPC homepage:
  - Click on-line documentation
  - Click documentation table of contents with comments
  - Click Add a comment


I think I finally figured out your little comment system for the units 
generated with
FPDOC that I seemed to magically find today:

http://community.freepascal.org:1/docs-html/rtl/index.html

The comment system *is* (and has been, for how long I don't know) in place - 
even if
it took me 50 years to find. The major problem is no one reads those documents, 
or
can find them easily.  People read what is indexed by google:
http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/rtl/

I think the reason I've never landed on a comment document page is because 
google
treats them as duplicates and doesn't index them. That, and as I said before, 
the
fact that we have so many FPC mirrors out there with the exact same content 
makes
google think there is no need to index the documents with comments.

I'd force the comments onto people - they can't do any harm. Why offer the docs
without comments? It'd be better for google, but not necessarily better for 
those
people who don't like comments under the documents (who wouldn't?).

Sorry if I couldn't find them - but if I can't find them, who can? (unless I'm a
clutz, which is highly possible).

--
L505

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-16 Thread Michael Van Canneyt



On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, L505 wrote:





Did you miss something?



On the FPC homepage:
- Click on-line documentation
- Click documentation table of contents with comments
- Click Add a comment




I think I finally figured out your little comment system for the units 
generated with
FPDOC that I seemed to magically find today:

http://community.freepascal.org:1/docs-html/rtl/index.html

The comment system *is* (and has been, for how long I don't know) in place - 
even if
it took me 50 years to find. The major problem is no one reads those documents, 
or
can find them easily.  People read what is indexed by google:
http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/rtl/

I think the reason I've never landed on a comment document page is because 
google
treats them as duplicates and doesn't index them. That, and as I said before, 
the
fact that we have so many FPC mirrors out there with the exact same content 
makes
google think there is no need to index the documents with comments.

I'd force the comments onto people - they can't do any harm. Why offer the docs
without comments? It'd be better for google, but not necessarily better for 
those
people who don't like comments under the documents (who wouldn't?).


The author, for one :-)

The commenting system puts extra load on the server which I don't want.

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-04 Thread Mark de Wever
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 06:13:30PM +0100, Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
 Mark de Wever wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I like to put a lot of comment in the source and I would like fpdoc to
 output this comment into the output files. I wrote a small patch to do
 this with types, it puts all the comment in front of a type declaration 
 into the output html as section Comment text. 
 
 
 (This is kind of shameless self promotion, since I took the PasDoc 
 projects this year: )
 
 If you want to get documentation generated from comments in your source 
 code, PasDoc may be a better tool for you. See [http://pasdoc.sf.net/].

I just looked into pasdoc and it looks promising, I'm testing it at the
moment.

Mark
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-04 Thread Michael Van Canneyt


On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, L505 wrote:



  Florian Klaempfl schrieb:
  
   Why ;)? Indeed, if you want generated docs from comments, better use 
   pasdoc.
 
  the source scanner used by fpDoc supports reading of comments for quite
  some time; but as I already told you (or was it Mattias?), the final
  support in fpDoc is still missing.
  If there is really interest in this feature, I will have a look at it.
  (And no, I didn't inspect the sent patch yet.)
  Any more opinions? Important, not so important?
 


 I think comments will be useful and important for developer versions of the
 documentation. Users may not care about the comments in the source code, but 
 it will
 be really useful for a developer version of the docs. Many times I write 
 comments
 in the code describing what the code does, so this comment feature in FPDOC 
 would
 help us make developer documentation clearer (users reading the docs, may not 
 care
 about comments so much).

 Kind of unrelated, but I'll be working on a CGI program that taps on top of 
 the FPDOC
 generated HTML files and allows users to make notes and comments via their web
 browser underneath the help documents. The way to get users do more work in 
 writing
 documentation, is to have a comment system right up live on the website. Even 
 the PHP
 manual does this ;-)

Please make sure that the fpdoc commenting logic is clearly separated from
the CGI logic. This way your changes can maybe be incorporates in the FPC
sources and website.

The end goal is a CGI system which creates HTML on the fly straight from
sources and XML documentation.


 Even though I'm not a fan of XML in many situations, I find FPDOC is a really 
 useful
 and an awesome tool - this time XML fits the job well since the tags are 
 sparse (lots
 of data between the tags).

We also like to think so ;-)

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-04 Thread Daniël Mantione


Op Sun, 4 Dec 2005, schreef L505:

  Please make sure that the fpdoc commenting logic is clearly separated from
  the CGI logic. This way your changes can maybe be incorporates in the FPC
  sources and website.
 
 Yup that's what I planned on doing to modularize development..  A separate 
 database
 of user comments will be included below the permanent FPDOC HTML 
 documentation. The
 permanent documentation (or at least compiled, not exactly permanent) will 
 exist
 separately from the database of user comments. This way none of the existing 
 FPDOC
 source code needs to be changed. Only the CGI program gets installed on a 
 server and
 it includes each FPDOC HTML page as if it were a PHP include file or a php 
 Read(). Of
 course I'm not using PHP, so in Pascal terms.. WebFileOut().
 
 We can have documentation mirrors via XML feeds.. but since I don't like XML 
 so much
 I'd actually consider spitting out an SQL dump or an SDS (simple data 
 storage) dump,
 or a CSV (comma delimitted) dump of the user comments. The user comments 
 could be
 parsed by freepascal.org by getting the CSV dump or SQL dump just like an RSS 
 feed
 does. In addition to live dumps, just a download of the current database dump 
 will be
 available.

Did you miss something?

On the FPC homepage:
- Click on-line documentation
- Click documentation table of contents with comments
- Click Add a comment

Daniël___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-04 Thread Mark de Wever
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 12:11:20AM +0100, Sebastian Günther wrote:
 Florian Klaempfl schrieb:
  
  Why ;)? Indeed, if you want generated docs from comments, better use pasdoc.
 
 the source scanner used by fpDoc supports reading of comments for quite
 some time; but as I already told you (or was it Mattias?), the final
 support in fpDoc is still missing.
 If there is really interest in this feature, I will have a look at it.
 (And no, I didn't inspect the sent patch yet.)
 Any more opinions? Important, not so important?

For now I switched to pasdoc, since it fulfills my shortterm needs. But
I still would be interested to see this option in fpDoc. 

Mark de Wever
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-04 Thread Daniël Mantione


Op Sun, 4 Dec 2005, schreef L505:

  Did you miss something?
 
  On the FPC homepage:
  - Click on-line documentation
  - Click documentation table of contents with comments
  - Click Add a comment
 
 I think we went over this before. I was talking about the FPDOC online 
 reference
 documents, actually. I think you are talking about the online documentation 
 which
 is different than the online reference? I usually read the FPDOC documents, 
 not the
 Online-documentation Tex generated ones. I do read the Online Tex 
 generated ones
 sometimes, but most of the time I'm running back and forth to the actual 
 FPDOC unit
 references.

We have only Online documentation. Some of it is generared from Tex, 
some from fpdoc. I guess you refer to the RTL documentation, which is the 
portion generated by fpdoc and the comment system is active on it. You may be 
confused that the URL looks like a normal html file (which they are on 
disk), but the comments are automatically added by the static pages module 
that is responsible for the comments. It can be switched on and off for 
any html page, and we can hide/modify/delete any comment.

 In any case, the online document comment system doesn't work optimally the 
 way it
 currently is on those online documents you speak of, either.. because all the 
 mirrors
 out there usually have a higher page rank on google, and the mirrors don't 
 have any
 comment system. So I end up reading the documentation at another domain name, 
 where
 there are no option for me to add comments quickly. We need a syndication 
 system
 anyway, where universities and other mirrors can parse User comments from a 
 database
 or Rss feed.

The purpose of a mirror is that it reduces the load on the main site. If 
they access a database of the main site, or an RSS feed, you are putting 
load on the main site. So you would need to do off-line synchronisation, 
it sounds very complicated to me and needs to be set up by people who are 
not necessarily be willing (or don't even have the knowledge) to spend a 
lot of time in setting up complicated stuff.

It is quite likely the FPC webpages will become less static html in the 
future. We could help mirrors to install dynamic stuff, but my 
experience is mirror maintainers simply want to install a bunch of html 
files, and nothing else.

 It doesn't really matter right now at this moment, though. I've talked about 
 this for
 ages and I never seem to get my point across fully. What I'll do is run this 
 system I
 speak of on Z505.com domain, and you'll see how it works there. I won't 
 suggest that
 freepascal.org take a look into it until I have a real world working example 
 to show
 you what I mean. I will also be documenting other things like the entire 
 Windows.pas
 file, which freepascal.org does not document for good reasons.  That's the 
 Windows
 API reference project for Delphi and Freepascal programmers. I have the 
 server space
 and bandwidth for thousands of documents so I have no problem hosting all of 
 this.
 Again, I don't want to sound all talk and no action here.. so I think I'll 
 save
 discussing my ideas until proven on Z505.

Well, if you are pointing at the PHP manuals I can say we have 100% of 
that functionality right now. If you want to write such a system in 
Pascal, go ahead, I won't stop you, the more Pascal code the better.

Daniël___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-03 Thread Michalis Kamburelis

Mark de Wever wrote:

Hi all,

I like to put a lot of comment in the source and I would like fpdoc to
output this comment into the output files. I wrote a small patch to do
this with types, it puts all the comment in front of a type declaration 
into the output html as section Comment text. 



(This is kind of shameless self promotion, since I took the PasDoc 
projects this year: )


If you want to get documentation generated from comments in your source 
code, PasDoc may be a better tool for you. See [http://pasdoc.sf.net/].


Michalis
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-03 Thread Florian Klaempfl
Michalis Kamburelis wrote:

 Mark de Wever wrote:
 
 Hi all,

 I like to put a lot of comment in the source and I would like fpdoc to
 output this comment into the output files. I wrote a small patch to do
 this with types, it puts all the comment in front of a type
 declaration into the output html as section Comment text.
 
 
 (This is kind of shameless self promotion, since I took the PasDoc
 projects this year: )

Why ;)? Indeed, if you want generated docs from comments, better use pasdoc.

 
 If you want to get documentation generated from comments in your source
 code, PasDoc may be a better tool for you. See [http://pasdoc.sf.net/].
 
 Michalis
 ___
 fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
 http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
 

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-03 Thread Sebastian Günther
Florian Klaempfl schrieb:
 
 Why ;)? Indeed, if you want generated docs from comments, better use pasdoc.

the source scanner used by fpDoc supports reading of comments for quite
some time; but as I already told you (or was it Mattias?), the final
support in fpDoc is still missing.
If there is really interest in this feature, I will have a look at it.
(And no, I didn't inspect the sent patch yet.)
Any more opinions? Important, not so important?


- Sebastian
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-03 Thread L505


 Florian Klaempfl schrieb:
 
  Why ;)? Indeed, if you want generated docs from comments, better use pasdoc.

 the source scanner used by fpDoc supports reading of comments for quite
 some time; but as I already told you (or was it Mattias?), the final
 support in fpDoc is still missing.
 If there is really interest in this feature, I will have a look at it.
 (And no, I didn't inspect the sent patch yet.)
 Any more opinions? Important, not so important?



I think comments will be useful and important for developer versions of the
documentation. Users may not care about the comments in the source code, but it 
will
be really useful for a developer version of the docs. Many times I write 
comments
in the code describing what the code does, so this comment feature in FPDOC 
would
help us make developer documentation clearer (users reading the docs, may not 
care
about comments so much).

Kind of unrelated, but I'll be working on a CGI program that taps on top of the 
FPDOC
generated HTML files and allows users to make notes and comments via their web
browser underneath the help documents. The way to get users do more work in 
writing
documentation, is to have a comment system right up live on the website. Even 
the PHP
manual does this ;-)

Even though I'm not a fan of XML in many situations, I find FPDOC is a really 
useful
and an awesome tool - this time XML fits the job well since the tags are sparse 
(lots
of data between the tags).

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


RE: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-03 Thread peter green
 The way to get users do
 more work in writing
 documentation, is to have a comment system right up live on the
 website. Even the PHP
 manual does this ;-)
yeah the accuracy of said information leaves a LOT to be desired though

imo if this is done someone needs to be resposible for looking at the
comments and checking they are factually accurate.

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


Re: [fpc-devel] [RFC] fpdoc output comment from the source

2005-12-03 Thread L505


  The way to get users do
  more work in writing
  documentation, is to have a comment system right up live on the
  website. Even the PHP
  manual does this ;-)
 yeah the accuracy of said information leaves a LOT to be desired though

 imo if this is done someone needs to be resposible for looking at the
 comments and checking they are factually accurate.


For sure. The comments are in a different color than the actual fixed
documentation. It will be clearly stated that these comments are from users 
and are
not necessarily correct. Users make their best effort to make accurate 
comments, but
occasionally there may be an error.

When an major and important comment from a user is submitted, the docs are 
recompiled
with the new changes. This way you get a fixed factual style documentation, 
along
with user contributed comments. The main problem with FPDOC the way it is now, 
is
that no FPC user in their right mind is going to spend 15 minutes - 3 hours
recompiling the entire FPDOCS just to make a small spelling mistake change or 
add a
small and useful comment.

And you think the FPC user is actually going to mail the mailing list with a 
patch to
the docs? Go to all that work and spend hours of his time figuring out how to 
make
and send a patch? People are lazy.. they want to update the documentation right
inside little Internet Explorer, Opera, or Konquerer, or ultimately a thin 
client
;-). I've not actually started working on this project but it's called LufDoc, 
and
I've got all the framework/basics laid out of what the system is, what it will 
do,
and how it will work. I just have too many other things to do right now... I 
think I
will work on this at some point when I'm done fiddling with Syn text editor and 
PSP a
bit more.

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel