My argument against it isn't so much that we want to protect the source from being perused but rather that we should keep the docs as clean and unconfusing for people as possible. Anyone who wants to view the source just has to pull it down from git and open it in TextMate (or browse it on github). The docs are an API reference. If you want to use the MooTools API, in theory they should be all you need and, as Darren points out, it protects both us and you by plainly illustrating our contract with you, the user, as to what we support.
But anyone who is going to go deeper than that is just going to download the library itself. Indeed, I almost always have the entire MooTools collection of files (-core, -more, clientcide, art, etc) in a Textmate project that's open, and I'm probably more likely to just switch to it, hit command-T and open the file I'm curious about and read the source than I am to go online and look at the docs. On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Dimitar Christoff <[email protected]>wrote: > > Hey FakeDaz :D > > > We would not wish to link directly to the source for any MooTools > > component from the documentation - simply because we do not list all > > methods in the documentation, as some are internal / private. > > you got it in one - and this is exactly WHY i want to have easy access > to the the source--in view of extending a class or whatever, or doing > something outside of its intended scope when in a hurry... > > how is a link to the relevant trunk going to be an issue, i don't know. > it's available anyway, this is just making it easier. > > and as you say, showing native/core code will do nothing but improve > people's coding practices as a whole. > -- > Dimitar Christoff <[email protected]> - http://fragged.org/ > >
