On Aug 13, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > 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....)
I know that, you do amazing amounts in spite of your responsibilities and I really appreciate it. The only reason I sent you an email is because you were/are working on the PackageInfo replacement, so it seemed appropriate. Is DrDoc on SqueakSource? I'll take a look. - Brian > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
