On 04/07/2010 21:11, Noel O'Boyle wrote: > 2010/7/4 Konstantin Tokarev<annu...@yandex.ru>: >> >> >> 04.07.10, 23:37, "Noel O'Boyle"<baoille...@gmail.com>: >> >>> On 30 June 2010 22:49, Chris Morley wrote: >>> > On 30/06/2010 12:24, Noel O'Boyle wrote: >>> >> On 30 June 2010 12:16, Geoffrey Hutchison wrote: >>> >>>> It would be useful if people could add at least a few lines to each >>> >>>> format saying what it is and what it might be used for. This is >>> >>>> particular true of the utility formats, which I still don't >>> >>> >>> >>> We *have* format documentation in the wiki. In particular, I tried >>> to document many of the "utility" formats. No, not all, but there are bits >>> here: >>> >>> http://openbabel.org/wiki/Formats >>> >> >>> >> I guess these were automatically generated from the Descriptions also, >>> >> right? I'll check for any modifications and then put that information >>> >> back into the .cpp descriptions. >>> > >>> > Geoff's pages are ok but would be better if >>> > - there was more content in the Descriptions >>> > - all the content including Additional Comments was there so that >>> > everything could be accessed from the command-line >>> > - there was a greater range of content type: examples etc. with >>> > appropriate formatting >>> > - it was easy to keep up to date. >>> > >>> > Noel's formatting is smarter but can I make some comments on the >>> > design? (Ref the SVGFormat description). >>> > >>> > There is a school which thinks that the more white space there is, the >>> > easier it is to understand. But I don't like very open layouts and >>> > think the key is getting the grouping and the hierarchy of comments >>> > right. So I would give a bigger emphasis to the first comment line, >>> > and have it more closely associated with the the option letter. >>> > >>> > The comment at the bottom about explicit hydrogen is what I would want >>> > in a Note box - "you've had the basic information, but have you >>> > thought about this?" >>> > >>> > I think it would be better to put the examples (especially the one >>> > near the end) in a different typeface and layout - like the wiki. The >>> > kind of person who uses OB probably looks at examples first and then >>> > reads the rest when he doesn't understand them. We should try too keep >>> > the exposition logical, but make the examples stand out - so keeping >>> > everybody happy. >>> >>> How about now? >>> http://baoilleach.webfactional.com/site_media/ob-docs/FileFormats/SVG_depiction.html >> >> Looks cool! Is it all generated from source documentation? > > The file format pages are. > > There are a couple of things to do still, like add a few missing > formats, "Read only" info, the specification and so forth. I had to > add a minus sign in front of the option letters to make it format it > nicely. This is not ideal - I might have to hack a bit to sort this > out.
It looks good! However I agree the '-' before the options is confusing because you have to use e.g. -xu One of the '-' has been removed from --gen2D. Could the <num> go on the same line as the option letter? Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ OpenBabel-Devel mailing list OpenBabel-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openbabel-devel
