On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:55 AM, 'Terry Brown' via leo-editor < [email protected]> wrote:
wondering if some automated source analysis could at least list > doc'ed and not doc'ed commands, if not extract docs. from the command > definitions. > I did something like this today by updating the script: "Print commands & docstrings" in scripts.leo. This script now creates a tree of nodes, one per command, that shows the command name, the method that implements it, and the docstring. The nodes are organized by class. This was less useful than I hoped. Anyway, it was easy to create a list of commands that might not have been documented. I simply moved "Commands" nodes from the release notes to a might-be-undocumented node. That was yesterday. Today I began searching for the command names in the Commands Reference section. Most searches failed. I think this is an inherently tedious process. Quite a bit of judgement is required to know exactly what to do. In most cases, but not all, the new commands should be merged with the existing docs. This includes properly formatting them per the conventions used in the Commands Reference. Here's where 99% perspiration is required. Imo, the work is worthwhile. Many have complained about missing docs. Now I understand why. EKR -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
