Hello Megha, "The m denotes a member field and is part of the Android coding style standards." http://code.google.com/android/intro/tutorial-ex2.html
This is the mention of 'Android coding style standards' in the notepad tutorial. I don't see them in the documentation though. Everything looks updated now. I guess a few days wasn't too bad. - Juan On Sep 29, 1:52 pm, "Megha Joshi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/9/27 jtaylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Hello Android Team, > > > Consider this a helpful criticism. But this sentence is still on the > > very front of the Documentation. - "A beta version of the Android SDK > > is available for download." and it's been a few days since the 1.0 SDK > > has been released. > > Thanks for the pointer...this text will be updated with the next docs > release. > > > This means that the Documentation hasn't been updated. > > No, certainly it does not mean that. The docs are updated generally on a > biweekly basis and with every sdk release. > > Also the > > > samples. > > Again, the samples have been updated, let us know if you have anything > specific in mind. > > No Gears documentation. > > There is no support for Gears with Android yet. > > apps-for-android apps wasn't updated > > > right away though I haven't checked recently. > > app-for-android is an on-going project, its updated with new apps > frequently. Most of them would work on 1.0. If something does not, please > file a issue in the apps-for-android project page itself. > > Classes mixed up. > > Could you be more specific here... > > > > > Mention of Android-coding-style-standards in the docs but these coding > > standards are nowhere to be found, yet they are used in the sample > > apps. > > and here... > > > > > My suggestion is that in an update to the SDK, everything should be > > updated at the same exact time. Since Android is a new contraption, > > then one needs a manual. And if the contraption is new and the manual > > is beta, then that's a bug. To a developer, the docs are inseparable > > from the SDK. > > Thats true, and that is how its done with Android. Thanks for your > feedback..always appreciated :) > > > "There are a few new permissions related to the "subscribed feeds > > ContentProvider", yet there does not appear to be any documentation of > > such a provider. The quoted phrase suggests it handles RSS/Atom feeds > > on behalf of client applications, and as such would be a handy > > addition to the framework. But, without a documented list of available > > properties and such, it would be difficult to use." > >http://androidguys.com/?p=1785 > > <http://androidguys.com/?p=1785> > > > > > From what Mark said here, it wouldn't be difficult but impossible to > > use. :) > > > - Juan t. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
