So it does :) I'll have a closer look soon.
On Sunday, 8 June 2014 22:29:13 UTC+2, Tim Holy wrote: > > On Sunday, June 08, 2014 01:16:51 PM Michael Hatherly wrote: > > Since everything in help is in Base as > > well, it doesn't seem to be a problem currently. > > Actually, the help system does take the module into account (I believe > Carlo > Baldassi implemented this): > > help> Base.print > Base.print(x) > > Write (to the default output stream) a canonical (un-decorated) > text representation of a value if there is one, otherwise call > "show". The representation used by "print" includes minimal > formatting and tries to avoid Julia-specific details. > > help> Profile.print > Base.Profile.print([io::IO = STDOUT], [data::Vector]; format = :tree, C = > false, combine = true, cols = tty_cols()) > > Prints profiling results to "io" (by default, "STDOUT"). If you > do not supply a "data" vector, the internal buffer of accumulated > backtraces will be used. "format" can be ":tree" or ":flat". > If "C==true", backtraces from C and Fortran code are shown. > "combine==true" merges instruction pointers that correspond to > the same line of code. "cols" controls the width of the display. > > Base.Profile.print([io::IO = STDOUT], data::Vector, lidict::Dict; format = > :tree, combine = true, cols = tty_cols()) > > Prints profiling results to "io". This variant is used to examine > results exported by a previous call to "Profile.retrieve()". > Supply the vector "data" of backtraces and a dictionary > "lidict" of line information. > > > > I'll take another look > > when I get a chance. > > > > [1] https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/master/base/help.jl#L102 > > > > On Sunday, 8 June 2014 21:32:36 UTC+2, Tim Holy wrote: > > > I agree with Daniel. We just need _something_, and on this issue the > > > diversity > > > of tastes seems to make consensus impossible. So kudos to you. I > really > > > hope > > > this keeps moving forward. > > > > > > What prevents it from working with functions rather than strings? > > > > > > --Tim > > > > > > On Saturday, June 07, 2014 02:16:11 PM Daniel Jones wrote: > > > > A good way of documenting packages is one of the biggest gaps in the > > > > julia ecosystem right now. Part of the reason why is evinced in the > > > > issues you cite: no matter what the system is, someone is going to > hate > > > > it. At this point, I'm sort of hoping someone will just ignore all > > > > feedback and build whatever they want. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, I think this is a pretty elegant solution. Just relying > on > > > > markdown h1 and h2 headers leaves open the possibility of generating > > > > html documentation from the same source. That's something I > appreciate, > > > > since I'd also want to generate html docs with example plots > rendered > > > > for gadfly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With Jake Bolewski's julia parser, I hope it will become easier to > > > > extract documentation from source code, either from comments or > > > > something like docstrings. Have you given any though to that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014, at 03:13 PM, Michael Hatherly wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've just put up a rough prototype for package documentation at > > > > [1]https://github.com/MichaelHatherly/Docile.jl. This is not meant > to > > > > be a solution to the documentation problem, but rather to start some > > > > fresh discussion on the matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any feedback would be great. There's more details in the readme. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > References > > > > > > > > 1. https://github.com/MichaelHatherly/Docile.jl >
