On Friday, March 11, 2011 19:31:51 Nicholas wrote: > == Quote from Jonathan M Davis ([email protected])'s article > > > On Friday, March 11, 2011 12:08:19 Nicholas wrote: > > > == Quote from novice2 ([email protected])'s article > > > > > > > Nicholas Wrote: > > > > > As a result of (my) complaining and being a huge fan of XMind, I > > > > > decided to try to organize the library for my own references as I > > > > > encounter new sections of it. I have a decent portion of it in > > > > > place now. I thought I'd post a link in case it can help anyone > > > > > else out as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://polish.slavic.pitt.edu/~swan/theta/Phobos.xmind > > > > > > > > may be you could expose/share your work via service like > > > > http://www.xmind.net/share/ > > > > because not everybody have installed xmind... > > > > > > Good point. I'll do that on Monday when I'm back at the office. I > > > updated std.datetime to 2.052 yesterday (didn't realize there was a > > > new version until then). > > > > LOL. Yeah. It's practically not even related to the previous version. The > > few items that it had were moved to core.time and left in std.datetime, > > but it's very small in comparison to what was added. What's there _is_ > > thoroughly documented though. So, depending on what your problem is with > > Phobos' documentation is (I don't know what your problem with it is), > > maybe you'll like that better. If your problem with the documentation > > has to do with the fact that the links on the top aren't organized > > (which they obviously need to be), then that problem still needs to be > > dealt with. There has been _some_ work in that direction though. Andrei > > has been working to improve how std.algorithm's links are laid out, and > > there has been a person or two who have been working on ways to improve > > the way all that is laid out in general, but it hasn't yet reached the > > point that Phobos' basic documentation layout has been truly fixed. > > Still, it's good to have as much documentation as we do, even if it > > could use some improvements as far as layout goes. > > - Jonathan M Davis > > Yeah, it was amazing when I opened up the new datetime source file. The > previous one just had Ticks and StopWatch along with 3 public functions > outside of those. It took me a while to go through the new one. > > > My problem with the documentation isn't that it lacks information. Most of > the developers have done an excellent job in that regards. The problem is > the layout. It takes as much time to find the information on the webpage > as it does to just search through the source code. And both can be fairly > crazy to look through. I believe that if you have to hit ctrl-f to find > what you need then there's a fundamental flaw with the layout.
Well, I don't think that the documentation layout needs improvement, but work on that has been a low enough priority that progress has been slow. > Not everyone thinks alike, though. I just wanted to offer an alternative. > Since no IDEs offer intellisense (VisualD's is rudimentary but improving) > there's a severe need for quick referencing. I was hoping to achieve that > with XMind. Well, I'd never heard of XMind before you mentioned it, so I have no idea what it offers, but if it can give a better version of the documentation, then it may be worth looking at. - Jonathan M Davis
