On 7 January 2014 09:51, Behdad Esfahbod <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14-01-07 09:16 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > >> So my question is: what type of documentation do people in the list > >> want to see the most? In-line function docs in the comments that > >> populate the gtk-docs? > > > > Each function needs a description, together with an explanation of all > > parameters, return values, etc., etc. – just think of having a > > HarfBuzz manpage. > > > >> Or external documentation that explains how to use Harfbuzz? > > > > This is certainly useful, too. But I consider the `manpage' > > documentation quest more important since there are already showcases > > that demonstrate HarfBuzz quite well. > > Sure. But most of the API is defined in a way that you wouldn't need any > documentation other than the header file to understand. > > For example, there's just no way you need any docs to understand: > > void > hb_set_del_range (hb_set_t *set, > hb_codepoint_t first, > hb_codepoint_t last); > > or most of the other type methods. > > There are a few number of *core* HB functions that need to be documented, > over > and again. hb_shape() being the main one. The one you were using wanting > it > even more. > > True. Priority is to document the non-obvious API first.
You mention hb_shape(). We could have that on the top of the list. From the top of your head do you think of anymore? > I'll try to reprioritize. But there's just so much time in this life... > I understand, which is why I think we should share this task. I'm happy to write docs, if someone proof checks them. > > Cheers, and thanks everyone, > > -- > behdad > http://behdad.org/ >
_______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
