On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Lars Gullik Bj�nnes wrote: > >> > 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.
Agreed (but my question is really about the choice of markup, see the end of my post). > 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. That's nice. Just to make sure I understand (and keep a copy in my send box :-) The documentation for each lfun should (at least?) contain: * The name of the lfun (or can this be automatically extracted?) * The mode (situation) in which it can be used * What (possibly optional) arguments it takes * Brief description of what it does > Think emacs's "describe-function" Sure, but I was really wondering about what markup to use in the actual description. When you say emacs' "describe-function", are you referring to how a function is typically described, or the *markup* that's used... /Christian -- Christian Ridderstr�m, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
