> I am certainly not opposed to have a bit of exposure on SO, but for the > purpose of documentation it sounds rather odd.
Seems to be accepted on SO. And it looks like I am not the first with this idea. Though I must admit, that I still wait and see, if my post is closed for some obscure reason, before I add another one. > You gave yourself a perfect example that even high-quality documentation > bit-rots rather quickly if it is not kept close to and maintained > together with the source. Yes.... but honestly, the documentation about the QtC internals is thin. Far below the great Qt docs. With the SO docs there is at least a chance, that volunteers can jump on and add to my docs, or even edit them when I make a mistake. And 'kept close to and maintained'...Did not really happen, else I wouldn't have had so much work to get into the code. Please, don't take this as criticism. A Qt like documentation for QtC would be overkill. Qt and QtC have different requirements. But this means that it might be necessary to try several methods of documentation and see which works best. SO could be one of those methods. Guido Guido _______________________________________________ Qt-creator mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
