On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 10:16:02AM +0200, Johan Dahlin wrote: > > Are the benefits so big, though? I don't think it's such a big problem > > to include in the doc/ directory a README that points to the > > downloadable tarballs and CVS -- whoever wants the file will be happy to > > download it, and who doesn't isn't bothered by the extra time to pull > > Yes, having it installed on all boxes which ships with PyGTK (Red > Hat/Fedora) vs not having it makes a big deal. I'll be much easier to > push it into distributions than including it separately. > > 600k is nothing this days. period.
Fair enough, though it's also fair to point out that there are quite a few other distributions that carry PyGTK today. > > John's intent is perhaps similar to mine here -- if we want to make > > maintenence of the docs easier and more easily integratable to our code > > contributions, then this could be the ideal solution. As long as someone > > has time to dissect the docs, add them to the correct spots, and change > > the generation scripts. It does sound like a lot of work, now that I > > think about it. :-) > > I'm happy with that too. But I don't think I'm going to spend a lot of > time implement it. Anyway, not everything can be generated, but I guess > something like function indexes (similar to gtk-doc ones). > But arguments to functions can't really be generated, since we're adding > our own argument parsing here and there. It's not as simple as in C > where you can just look at the function prototype unfortunately. I suppose we could use special comments to indicate what the API is like, Javadoc/epydoc-style, but I'm not sure how technically feasible that is. Take care, -- Christian Robottom Reis | http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 261 2331 _______________________________________________ pygtk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://www.async.com.br/faq/pygtk/
