> I've only just picked up on this thread, so excuse me if some of this has > already been said. > > I agree with Davy. I don't want to learn GTK+ just to learn GTK#. > > If you just want skeleton API documentation to get you started why not run > the > GTK# assemblies through ndoc. I'm not sure if ndoc will run on mono. The > worst > case is compiling the GTK# source and generating the XML doc files > locally, > then using ndoc to either produce .chm help file or MSDN style html api > docs.
Yes, but if I'm not wrong, XML files produced by monodoc cannot be processed directly with ndoc... monodoc generates an XML file for each corresponding *.cs file, while ndoc exprects a single XML file for each assembly. The mono project does not embed the documentation into the code. Instead, XML skeleton are generated with monodoc starting from the compiled assemblies. Gius_. > > I'm a little surprised no-one has done this yet. This could be a useful > contribution to the GTK# project. If there's no takers, I'll happily do > it. > > Does this sound useful? > > Brian. > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > [snip] >> unfortunately i don't have the time to learn GTK+ and then start using >> gtk#. Most people won't be willing to learn GTK+ just because they >> need it to use gtk# in a way that allows them to write advanced GUI >> applications. It's kinda like telling people they need to learn C >> before they can learn C#. I wanna be able to use gtk# efficiently >> without having to learn GTK+. And i'm sure many people feel the same >> way about this. >> >> Once again, i do not want to offend the people that work on mono. On >> the contrary, i'm very happy with the things that are already possible >> with mono. I just want to point out that for those of us who don't >> have any gtk+ experience, it's frustrating to learn gtk# due to the >> current level of the documentation. And yea i've already received >> plenty of "it's a developing project so do your part and write the >> documentation yourself" mails so don't bother pointing that out. I'd >> be willing to help out in the documentation part, but it's kinda hard >> to write documentation about stuff >> (methods/events/...) you didn't even know existed isn't it? Now of >> course i can't expect the documentation to be as good as the one >> available at MSDN. But it would be nice to at least have a complete >> API reference (all the extra eplanation isn't even necessary... just a >> list of everything the class has to offer would be nice) which would >> be easily accessible (for instance in HTML form like that GTK+ API >> documentation that you mentioned). >> >> All i'm saying is that if you want people to use mono and gtk#, then >> don't expect them to learn GTK+ first or to have GTK+ experience. >> People who don't know GTK+ but who want to learn GTK# won't like being >> told "learn GTK+ first and then you'll be able to use GTK# well >> enough". As i said before, it's like telling people to learn C before >> they can learn C# and we all know that's not necessary. >> >> kind regards, >> davy brion > ------- End of Original Message ------- > > _______________________________________________ > Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list > ---------------------------------------- Giuseppe Greco ::agamura:: phone: +41 (0)91 604 67 65 mobile: +41 (0)76 390 60 32 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.agamura.com ---------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
