2009/4/9 Frank Barknecht <f...@footils.org>:
> Hallo,
> dmotd hat gesagt: // dmotd wrote:
>
>> i am not at all convinced that pdpedia/mediawiki serves as a good
>> method for object reference. it is difficult to maintain (a lot of
>> manual copy and paste), its search/sort functionality is limited,
>> the up/down stream api is severely lacking and most of all it is
>> difficult to integrate it into a pd environment (outside of simple
>> pddp links which are usually inside the object reference anyhow).
>
> I believe, reference documentation belongs into the code and additional 
> display
> methods should be generated from that.

hi frank,
please be more elaborate. are you distinguishing between reference and
documentation? is "reference documentation" the help patches or some
other kind of object reference. are you talking about code comments?
in help patches? or in the C code?

I think that the purpose of documentation is to teach/explain how to
use objects? reference might be something slightly different.

the problem imho is that there is no basis right now on which an
automatic documentation generation could build on. I also think that
autogeneration would be extremely helpful, but... who of the
vanilla/external-developers will reliably stick to any rules? since
developers are bad documentators but you still propose that code
should be the source to generate documentation, how do you think
people (who would like to do some documentation) should contribute?
directly to the source code?

how do you envision that users will search for objects? where do you
think information like tags, similar objects, example patches should
come from?

marius.

_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Reply via email to