Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
Well, then they need to be added for Delphi compatiblity :o I can't say anything anymore when the reason is this :) They have been added. It's just not yet in trunk. Hoo... a hidden branch? -- View this message in context: http://free-pascal-lazarus.989080.n3.nabble.com/Lazarus-Should-TObject-or-TComponent-have-a-Comment-property-tp4032315p4032398.html Sent from the Free Pascal - Lazarus mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, leledumbo wrote: Well, then they need to be added for Delphi compatiblity :o I can't say anything anymore when the reason is this :) They have been added. It's just not yet in trunk. Hoo... a hidden branch? It's not hidden. I suspect it is called joost Michael. -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
On 15.07.2013 15:33, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, leledumbo wrote: Well, then they need to be added for Delphi compatiblity :o I can't say anything anymore when the reason is this :) They have been added. It's just not yet in trunk. Hoo... a hidden branch? It's not hidden. I suspect it is called joost branches/joost/classattributes to be precise. Regards, Sven -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
On 11 July 2013 23:07, Benito van der Zander ben...@benibela.de wrote: Annotations like in Java would be nice... On 07/11/2013 10:22 PM, vfclists . wrote: Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property? I think they should. One for the design itself and one for describing the usage at design or runtime. Smalltalk has it. Consider it a version of the Hint property but for the developer -- Frank Church === http://devblog.brahmancreations.com -- ___ Lazarus mailing listLazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.orghttp://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus This attitude which exists in the Pascal community needs to end. I say Pascal not FreePascal because when I examine a lot of free Delphi libraries I see the same thing. Lots and lots of code and not a comment in sight. It makes stuff needlessly difficult. The simple fact is documentation is never going to happen because no one has time to create it with separate tools, not even the people writing the code themselves. Coding time is the best time for documentation because that is when the intent of the code is clear and fresh in the developers mind, and incurs minimal additional cost. After all it takes barely a minute or two to describe a function, and the same parsing tools compiling the code can pull out the comments and create documentation stubs if there is a need to flesh them out further, eg with examples etc Even a lot of the funded open source libraries don't have the resources to create proper documentation. If you take Delphi for instance, since Turbo Pascal, Delphi 7 etc the quality of documentation has gone down and these are companies that are well funded. Instead of doing the simple thing a purist attitude has been adopted which never does anyone any good. It is time developers learn to treat other developers as consumers not people who are supposed to RTFC or RTFM. Developers are people who are supposed to put parts together just by examining the function parameters and the function descriptions rather than wade through loads of procedure definitions and sample code full of similar sounding and confusing names. Enough digression - if considered carefully a comment about the purpose of an object belongs in the object definition itself. Why should interrogation about an object's purpose be handled by a whole subsystem of code which has precisely nothing to do with the object, ie the operating system, a help displaying program, a filename which is the help document, as well as a search string which is the object's name? Multiply that by the variety of help displaying programs for each operating system, then by the number of operating systems available then you can see how ridiculous the whole concept is. Just bureaucracy piled on bureaucracy and attachment to ill thought out convention and tradition. There is never a direct link between an object and the help display programs available on the operating system. There is a totally insane disconnect here. The Smalltalk guys got it right. There can be an options to strip the comments out in the final deliverable just like the debugging information. -- Frank Church === http://devblog.brahmancreations.com -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
On 12 July 2013 01:20, leledumbo leledumbo_c...@yahoo.co.id wrote: Annotations like in Java would be nice... No IMHO, that would complicate reading the code (more cluttered) as you can see in the newer Delphi versions (called attributes instead of annotations though). This is what folding editors exist for. The developer can fold them out of view when he doesn't need to read them This facility already exists in the Lazarus editor. Any way I thinking of simple one liners, not whole paragraphs. -- Frank Church === http://devblog.brahmancreations.com -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
as you can see in the newer Delphi versions (called attributes instead of annotations though). Well, then they need to be added for Delphi compatiblity :o On 07/12/2013 02:20 AM, leledumbo wrote: Annotations like in Java would be nice... No IMHO, that would complicate reading the code (more cluttered) as you can see in the newer Delphi versions (called attributes instead of annotations though). -- View this message in context: http://free-pascal-lazarus.989080.n3.nabble.com/Lazarus-Should-TObject-or-TComponent-have-a-Comment-property-tp4032315p4032318.html Sent from the Free Pascal - Lazarus mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Benito van der Zander wrote: as you can see in the newer Delphi versions (called attributes instead of annotations though). Well, then they need to be added for Delphi compatiblity :o They have been added. It's just not yet in trunk. Michael. -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
[Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property? I think they should. One for the design itself and one for describing the usage at design or runtime. Smalltalk has it. Consider it a version of the Hint property but for the developer -- Frank Church === http://devblog.brahmancreations.com -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
On 2013-07-11 21:22, vfclists . wrote: Consider it a version of the Hint property but for the developer That's the job of documentation. Fix the documentation in Lazarus IDE (format, content, integration), and your problems is solved. Regards, G. -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
Annotations like in Java would be nice... On 07/11/2013 10:22 PM, vfclists . wrote: Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property? I think they should. One for the design itself and one for describing the usage at design or runtime. Smalltalk has it. Consider it a version of the Hint property but for the developer -- Frank Church === http://devblog.brahmancreations.com -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
Annotations like in Java would be nice... No IMHO, that would complicate reading the code (more cluttered) as you can see in the newer Delphi versions (called attributes instead of annotations though). -- View this message in context: http://free-pascal-lazarus.989080.n3.nabble.com/Lazarus-Should-TObject-or-TComponent-have-a-Comment-property-tp4032315p4032318.html Sent from the Free Pascal - Lazarus mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
