On Aug 13, 2009, at 11:41 AM, laurent laffont wrote: > > > So far we should invent it. > And I totally agree with you. If people do not see the good doc they > will not write good comment. > I started to work on DrDoc a kind of package meta data to add > documentation to a package but it got stole > I should push that again. What would be nice is to take one package > and do it well as an example. > > > It think it should be possible to write documentation at the package > level. So developpers have a place where they can write an overview > of their package. When we click on a package, documentation should > be displayed by default or easily.
Yes this is exactly the idea behind DrDoc The browser or another tools could show us that You can have a look at DrDoc and we could pair code more on it. > In the rubygems world, it is a common practice to write > documentation in a README file which is displayed by RDoc on startup > page (github works the same way). It seems to me that there's the > same level of comment between Ruby class/methods and Pharo. The > documentation at the package level may be the difference. Yes > Python has a real documentation effort.Each release come with its up > to date documentation. It's a release criteria. Python shares some > similarities with Pharo as they both have "batteries included". May > be there should have a process to contribute to a centralized Pharo > documentation which can be accessed within the IDE. Yes I think that pushing a bit more DrDoc is the way to go. I'm just flooded by work. > > Laurent. > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
