begin quoting David Brown as of Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 09:46:55PM -0700: > On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 08:39:53PM -0700, Darren New wrote: > > >Granted, it doesn't have to be bad. But in my experience, any library that > >gives you *only* auto-extracted documentation has suckalicious > >documentation. Anyone doing serious development for useful libraries does > >the documentation first, and something winds up without a good place to > >put it in the code. > > I don't think it is possible to write meaningful documentation for > non-trivial and non-redundant code before the code has been written. We > like to maintain an illusion that things can work this way, but they don't.
Oh, I dunno. The less trivial and redundant the code, the easier it is to write documentation for. Trivial code is hard to write meaningful documentation for. I also wouldn't worry about writing the documentation for more than one a method or class. Writing out the documentation for the whole project before you write any code? I agree -- not useful. > You can document the library this way the second time you write it, > perhaps. Well, if your first solution was a spike solution to see if you *could* do it, yah. :) -- Can we do it? I dunno. Let's try it and find out. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
