Martin <[email protected]> hat am 11. Februar 2012 um 14:59 geschrieben:
>[...] > We have 3 cases> > 1) correct and good documentation. No note was ever attached, or if it > was, then it was in error and removal is appropriate > > 2) empty or meaningless. (can be seen of a kind of wrong, but not > "incorrect" or "untrue"). > We do not need a note to tell the end user "This is meaningless/empty" "Empty" is clear. But it is not always clear if something is "meaningless". For example a description "loads a file" for a method LoadFromFile is like stating the obvious. But when this term is translated it becomes helpful. > > 3) incorrect , untrue > Does not need a note. Does need immediate removal. +1 > > > > > > > >> Such an entry is absolutely useless without instructions *what* > > should be > > >> implemented at all. > > > > That's the problem: If someone knows that it cannot be as documented > > it does not automatically mean that he knows how it would be correct. > > Still I would prefer to be informed about a documentation error > > instead of letting me believe wrong things. > So we need a place to list those things. > > The final doc (or anything that will be in it) is not the place. See the new fpdoc feature. > > Then (as long as we have nothing better) use the bug-tracker. (I do not > favour that, but it is the better place) I doubt that this is practical. Creating one bug report per item would create too much overhead. Creating bug reports with multiple entries does not work well. > > Or ask on the mailing list and fix, once you got an answer > > > > > > It doesn't matter if it wasnt good before. Your [?] tags make it worse. > > > > I don't think so. It may be not very elegant. But you made it worse > > again. Why didn't you take the hint and correct the documenation? That > > would have been a real improvement. > > Maybe he didn't know either Mattias
-- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
