[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Georg Baum wrote:
>
>> Am Samstag, 11. Juni 2005 13:06 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> > Anyway, although I also feel that the documentation should
>> > (eventually) be stored in the source, I can see why now is not a good
>> > time for that.
>>
>> Why? Adding documentation, be it as comments or as strings in a new
>> (otherwise unused) member of the ev_item struct cannot introduce bugs or
>> influence the release of 1.4 in any other way. Or do I miss something?
>
| Even adding a simple unused member requires extra work and testing on the
| source (although not that much I guess).
>
| Having reread this thread, I started wondering about translating the
| documents... how does that work when you put strings in the source?
>
>> > PS. As for Lars' comment about having to learn wiki markup, the writer -
>> > whoever it is - *will* have to learn some kind of markup.
>>
>> Only if he does not know it already. I agree with Lars that another kind
>> of markup should be avoided. Why not use doxygen? We use that already and
>> know it, and it has everything you need (links, emphasizing, lists etc.)
>
| Although I don't know doxygen, I'd probably be fine with using it - as
| long as most developers already know it. Is this the case?
But we don't want that kind of documentation for lfuns, we want
documentation that is accesible from inside lyx. We whant the
documentaion to tell where (in what mode) the lfun is available what
argumetns it takes (and their types). And we also want a short
paragraph describing what the lfun does.
Think emacs's "describe-function"
--
Lgb
