But you know you can also propose a solution with code. :) Take DrDoc and improve it. I agree more than 200% with you but my day job in not improving pharo or squeak. Pharo is a nice project but I have plenty of other things that I have to do (admin, research, PhD students....)
Stef >> 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! Here is a post I made in April of 2003: > > > > The biggest frustration with using comments is that there is no good > > "starting place" for a given class category. For example, go browse > > the Seaside classes and categories and figure out where one should > > start. You can repeat this exercise for any number of categories. I > > propose that we we add a documentation attribute to the PackageInfo > > stuff, so there is a category level documentation spot, with links > to > > the appropriate class comments. > > > Any thoughts? > I didn't get any response, and I sent a similar type of thought to > Stef recently, but he's so busy I don't even know if he read my > email :) > > - Brian >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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 _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
