This is an interesting idea, Derek, but I'd suggest you call it something other
than Fusedoc. Fusedoc refers to a very specific method for documenting code
files. You're certainly free to use whatever method you like, and maybe it'll
become a popular vehicle. But to avoid confusion and help learners comprehend
what goes on, it would be beneficial to hang a different name on your concept.
(It would also help you easily differentiate your ideas from Hal's).
- Jeff
On 30 May 2001, at 11:18, Derek Hamilton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In reference to the below from Nat, has anyone ever considered making
> fusedocs an xml base document? I recently started doing this with my
> fusedocs so that later (ie when I get around to it) I can write a little
> program to go in and parse the xml and create some sort of README document
> or whatever I decide to do with it. You could this way also use a DTD to
> have typical types of inputs/outputs defined.
>
> This might not answer all questions but I was just wondering...
>
> Derek
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nat Papovich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Fusedocs Q
>
>
> > Patrick -
> >
> Fusedocs can be
> > long and involved and must be well written to get business rules and
> > processes into code, including any algorithms for determinig figures,
> rates,
> > scores, or whatever your business may be.
> >
> > NAT
>
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
