On 2/11/2012 05:59, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho schrieb:
> It is not about liking, I think it is just plainly obvious that if
> someone downloads our software and builds our docs, presses F1 and
> reads [really?] it makes us look ridiculous so it is not acceptable to
> have that in our documentation.
Well, my opinion is: I would prefer to have a hint that something is wrong in
the documentation instead of letting me believe it is correct if it's not. It's
a kind of "watch out" which lets me have a closer look when things do not work
as expected. If you don't want this in the documentation then *correct* it
instead of reverting back to faulty documentation.
+1000000000000000000000000000000~
you get the golden "AttaBoy" award! this is a "HugeThing<tm>"... especially
since you were able to point out the problem quite clearly... now the only hope
is that others see it as clearly ;)
>> 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.
and thus the [WTF?] style nomenclature in the available docs ;)
> 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.
> Then just change it to Angle16Deg and Angle16DegLength. From reading
> "looks outdated" how am I supposed to know that you mean that the
> parameter name is slightlt wrong?
If you don't know this how should others know it?
O.M.G.!! this really had to be spelled out??? :? :? :?
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
