On 2/8/06, Stephen Gilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The idea of a single table that shows all the class elements, both
> defined in the class and inherited, is a bit daunting. For example, the
> table for the DataGrid would contain over 200 rows, probably closer to
> 250 rows.
I appreciate that
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chris Velevitch
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 6:28 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Flex 2 - Looking for feedback on Flex API doc
On 2/7/06, Stephen Gilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For your comment on issue #4, we are planning
On 2/7/06, Stephen Gilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For your comment on issue #4, we are planning on adding the "Use" and
I'm interested in knowing what your thoughts are on my comments on issue #1.
> On 2/3/06, Stephen Gilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. ... We have a
> > request to split
ups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Flex 2 - Looking for feedback on Flex API doc
On 2/3/06, Stephen Gilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. ... We have a
> request to split the public and protected methods into separate
> tables, so that you do not see the protected methods if you a
11 PM
To: Stephen Gilson
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Flex 2 - Looking for feedback on Flex API doc
> We modeled this documentation on JavaDocs. So, if you are familiar
> with JavaDocs, it should look pretty familiar. You can see it here:
Will there be a tool in the free release of Compiler/F
> We modeled this documentation on JavaDocs. So, if you are familiar with
> JavaDocs, it should look pretty familiar. You can see it here:
Will there be a tool in the free release of Compiler/Framework to
generate such documentation? Would be a great thing to have the same
doc format used by all
it.
Stephen
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Teoti
GraphixSent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 6:14 PMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [flexcoders] Flex 2 - Looking
for feedback on Flex API doc
1. Would there be a way to toggle them? I develop
They are just perfect! Nice work.I definitely don't agree with Gunnar's remark that:"The MXML examples at the end, however, should be removed and replaced with AS-examples."Cheers -michael
On 2/3/06, gunnar a reinseth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. The docs should definately display both prote
1. The docs should definately display both protected and public methods/properties - just the way it is! (and it's nice to see that the 'override' keyword is used as well)2. The MXML syntax summary is helpful to get a quick overview of the component -
e.g. if i'm only looking for a style name.
On 2/3/06, Stephen Gilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. ... We have a
> request to split the public and protected methods into separate tables,
> so that you do not see the protected methods if you are using the class,
> but view them only when you are creating a subclass.
The distinction betwee
1. Would there be a way to toggle them? I develop components, so having
everything is nice. But when you are making an application, yes, you
definitly don't need protected stuff.
2.I think it's nice, for me it's likle seeing flash cards over and
over, you memorize things quicker seeing compact
11 matches
Mail list logo
