Re: Establishing a recommended statndard for documenting dub packages
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:59:16 +, Karabuta wrote: > Looking through documentations for the various packages available in the > dub registry, I noticed that some packages have very good documentation > whilst others are quite not there yet. ... > > Therefore I suggest the community put-up some kind of documentation > guideline to standardize the learning curve for packages/libraries. The > IPFS project (ipfs.io) has something like this which makes some things > easy to pick up and has motivated me to suggest this idea. What is your > opinion on this? Something like: * Purpose / features Sell me on your project in two sentences. Then talk about what other neat or handy things the project does. * Installation How to install it, if there are any non-obvious steps. For instance, if I have to install any external libraries, like GTK+ or libevent. This should include an up-to-date dub.json dependencies line. * Code examples For the most common use cases, a human-readable description of what the use case is, followed by a code example implementing that use case. This should include import statements. * Any important caveats to use eg: in order to use this, you must compile with a specific version flag. Assumes Gregorian calendar transition happened on 15 October 1582, before which the Armenian calendar was in use. * License
Re: Establishing a recommended statndard for documenting dub packages
On Tuesday, 16 August 2016 at 21:05:29 UTC, jmh530 wrote: On Tuesday, 16 August 2016 at 19:59:16 UTC, Karabuta wrote: Looking through documentations for the various packages available in the dub registry, I noticed that some packages have very good documentation whilst others are quite not there yet. ... Therefore I suggest the community put-up some kind of documentation guideline to standardize the learning curve for packages/libraries. The IPFS project (ipfs.io) has something like this which makes some things easy to pick up and has motivated me to suggest this idea. What is your opinion on this? How about that standard applies to phobos while we're at it? Why not?
Re: Establishing a recommended statndard for documenting dub packages
On Tuesday, 16 August 2016 at 19:59:16 UTC, Karabuta wrote: Looking through documentations for the various packages available in the dub registry, I noticed that some packages have very good documentation whilst others are quite not there yet. ... Therefore I suggest the community put-up some kind of documentation guideline to standardize the learning curve for packages/libraries. The IPFS project (ipfs.io) has something like this which makes some things easy to pick up and has motivated me to suggest this idea. What is your opinion on this? How about that standard applies to phobos while we're at it?
Establishing a recommended statndard for documenting dub packages
Looking through documentations for the various packages available in the dub registry, I noticed that some packages have very good documentation whilst others are quite not there yet. ... Therefore I suggest the community put-up some kind of documentation guideline to standardize the learning curve for packages/libraries. The IPFS project (ipfs.io) has something like this which makes some things easy to pick up and has motivated me to suggest this idea. What is your opinion on this?
