On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Luke Daley wrote:
> [...]
> That's really exciting to hear (read?).
>
Both read and hear I guess ;-)
> Perhaps we should consider joining forces on this to create something
> quite powerful that we could use to replace our DSL reference as well. If
> the new tool
On 04/03/2013, at 12:09 PM, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> Hi Luke,
>
> I'm not advocating any of those options... but I'm definitely interested in
> the discussion!
>
> As part of the coming Groovy documentation and website overall initiative,
> I'm thinking GroovyDoc should get a facelift, if
Hi Luke,
I'm not advocating any of those options... but I'm definitely interested in
the discussion!
As part of the coming Groovy documentation and website overall initiative,
I'm thinking GroovyDoc should get a facelift, if only from a look'n feel
perspective (think nicer skin, some basic javasc
Hi,
I think we should consider what to do about this at some point. Groovydoc just
doesn't cut it and having the API doc spread over two places is no good.
I think we have three options:
1. Only use Java for any public API (i.e. anything that ends up in the api docs)
2. Fix Groovydoc so that it
