The coverage tool shows several features within the leoTangle.py code that aren't being tested; at this point, however, I'm more inclined to restart work on major revisions to Chapter 4 of the manual - which is what drove me to deal with the @root code in the first place. Perhaps as I attempt to explain features within the documentation, I'll be motivated to revisit them in the code. Last time, when I tried to explain what @root did in the documentation, I was driven to fix the code. Before fixing the code, I removed (@rst-ignore-tree) mention of @root from the documentation. That wasn't met with much enthusiasm.
This time, I'm going to do my documentation work on the trunk. Question 1: if I encounter a non-working feature, is it acceptable to hide its documentation until someone is motivated to fix it? Question 2: If I find undocumented (working) features in the code, do I simplify the code by removing the feature, or do I document the feature? I'm looking for broad sentiments, not ironclad rules; i.e., if I find an undocumented feature with a trivial bug, but I decide i *want* that feature, it's going to get tested, fixed and documented :-). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
