On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > > IMHO the IDE docs should be taken offline (or readonly), and quickly > > reformed to some master format, and managed in SVN, versioned, like the rest > > of the docs. > Good idea; as long as they can be as easily edited as on the wiki...
That's not possible in a reasonable timeframe. > > I think that needs to happen anyway, even if online is kept leading, just to > > get proper versioning. > If you take versioning as matching a certain Laz version with a certain > help document, I do agree, but that would need to be done for FPC as > well, IIUC. FPC does so since forever, since it only uses the wiki as it should be: public writable dumping ground for the more esotheric and/or short-lived topics. Every release comes with full offline docs in dist/<version>/docs/ True, it isn't versioned (branched) in SVN (and I like to see that change, for about a decade now), but that is a relative minor issue. > As for the version control interpretation of versioning (the one I think > you mean): no comments except a reference to our earlier discussion on > this point... I mean both. > > 22754 is difficult. result is not a keyword, but a pseudo variable, and its > > existence depends on context. So you can't simply add it to the keywords > > (ref.kwd), and it is not declared in each function either. > What happens if you do add it to ref.kwd with the caution that it works > only with objfpc & Delphi modes? Any result identifier will point to this. Also when it is not an implicit returnvalue, but e.g. a fieldname. > Ok, it will give false positives in procedures and TP code, but that may > be better than not giving any help. It will also give false positives in other modes. -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
