On 10.06.05, Angus Leeming wrote:
> On Friday 10 June 2005 14:05, G. Milde wrote:
> > On 10.06.05, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > > Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> > > > | Unfortunately, This script both stores and manipulates the
> > > > | raw data ...
> > > >
> > > > Agree.. one of the remaining bad thin
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, G. Milde wrote:
> > Hmm... are you suggesting that *only* the short description should go
> > into the source eventually? Wouldn't that too easily lead to the long
> > and the short descriptions diverging?
>
> Yes. This seems to me as a good tradeoff between ease of work for
On 13.06.05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, G. Milde wrote:
> > IMHO, the short description doesnot need any markup. (And if a see-also
> > should be contained in the Synopsis (I would put See Also only in the
> > full doc), an extraction script could easily convert a lfun-name t
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, G. Milde wrote:
> > > But we don't want that kind of documentation for lfuns, we want
> > > documentation that is accesible from inside lyx.
>
> IMHO, we need both, a short description for tooltips or the status line
> and a full description with markup and links etc.
>
> >
On 13.06.05, G. Milde wrote:
> On 10.06.05, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> > "G. Milde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > | IMHO, it would be easier the other way round (put the info into
> > | LyXAction in the first place).
> > >
> > | - { LFUN_ACUTE, "accent-acute", Noop },
> > | +
On 13.06.05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> > But we don't want that kind of documentation for lfuns, we want
> > documentation that is accesible from inside lyx.
IMHO, we need both, a short description for tooltips or the status line
and a full descr
On 10.06.05, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> "G. Milde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | IMHO, it would be easier the other way round (put the info into
> | LyXAction in the first place).
> >
> | - { LFUN_ACUTE, "accent-acute", Noop },
> | + { LFUN_ACUTE, "accent-acute", Noop, ""
> "chr" == chr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
chr> Anyway, although I also feel that the documentation should
chr> (eventually) be stored in the source, I can see why now is not a
chr> good time for that.
I think basically that you should not wait for us :)
chr> I assume Gunter and I can "pepp
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >> > PS. As for Lars' comment about having to learn wiki markup, the writer -
> >> > whoever it is - *will* have to learn some kind of markup.
> >>
> >> Only if he does not know it already. I agree with Lars that another kind
> >> of markup shoul
Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Am Samstag, 11. Juni 2005 19:23 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
>> Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> | Why? Adding documentation, be it as comments or as strings in a new
>> | (otherwise unused) member of the ev_item struct cannot introduce bugs
| or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Georg Baum wrote:
>
>> Am Samstag, 11. Juni 2005 13:06 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> > Anyway, although I also feel that the documentation should
>> > (eventually) be stored in the source, I can see why now is not a good
>> > time for that.
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Georg Baum wrote:
>
>> > Except delaying it of course...
>>
>> Maybe. Of course we get delays if lfuns need to be discussed on the list,
>> but that is independent from the documentation format. If we don't want
>> that we should freeze the lfun
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Georg Baum wrote:
> > Except delaying it of course...
>
> Maybe. Of course we get delays if lfuns need to be discussed on the list,
> but that is independent from the documentation format. If we don't want
> that we should freeze the lfun documentation until 1.4.0 is releas
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Georg Baum wrote:
> Am Samstag, 11. Juni 2005 13:06 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > Anyway, although I also feel that the documentation should
> > (eventually) be stored in the source, I can see why now is not a good
> > time for that.
>
> Why? Adding documentation, be it a
Am Samstag, 11. Juni 2005 19:23 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
> Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Why? Adding documentation, be it as comments or as strings in a new
> | (otherwise unused) member of the ev_item struct cannot introduce bugs
or
> | influence the release of 1.4 in any other
Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Am Samstag, 11. Juni 2005 13:06 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>> Anyway, although I also feel that the documentation should (eventually)
| be
>> stored in the source, I can see why now is not a good time for that.
>
| Why? Adding documentation, be it as com
Am Samstag, 11. Juni 2005 13:06 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Anyway, although I also feel that the documentation should (eventually)
be
> stored in the source, I can see why now is not a good time for that.
Why? Adding documentation, be it as comments or as strings in a new
(otherwise unused) m
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "G" == G Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> And all of this is 1.5 stuff anyway.
>
> G> Does this mean I have to wait another 2 years for documented lfuns
> G> (or could this possibly also go to 1.4.x)?
>
> It may happen, but do not
On Friday 10 June 2005 14:05, G. Milde wrote:
> On 10.06.05, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> > >>> Have a look at lib/generate_contributions.py which is used to
> > >>> generate lib/CREDITS, credits.php and blanket_permission.php
> > >>> . I guess that the idea of "one source,
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
| Lars> "G. Milde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Does this mean I have to
| Lars> wait another 2 years for documented lfuns (or could | this
| Lars> possibly also go to 1.4.x)?
>
| L
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> "G. Milde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Does this mean I have to
Lars> wait another 2 years for documented lfuns (or could | this
Lars> possibly also go to 1.4.x)?
Lars> We really, really do not want 1.5 to take that long.
La
"G. Milde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Does this mean I have to wait another 2 years for documented lfuns (or could
| this possibly also go to 1.4.x)?
We really, really do not want 1.5 to take that long.
We should probably, do quick releases I don't know. One feature (+
some cleanup) -> re
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Have a look at lib/generate_contributions.py which is used to generate
lib/CREDITS, credits.php and blanket_permission.php . I guess that the
idea of "one source, several outputs" is what you're looking for here
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Lars> | Lars> Or was it documentation that happened to be used for
Lars> tooltips. | Lars> AFAIK the strings w
"G. Milde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| IMHO, it would be easier the other way round (put the info into LyXAction in
| the first place). With CVS it is easy to gradually add the documentation
| once there is a provision for it, say two empty strings for all items and the
| changed needed to "dige
> "G" == G Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> And all of this is 1.5 stuff anyway.
G> Does this mean I have to wait another 2 years for documented lfuns
G> (or could this possibly also go to 1.4.x)?
It may happen, but do not count on it. That is I suggested to start
without waiting for sup
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
| Lars> Or was it documentation that happened to be used for tooltips.
| Lars> AFAIK the strings was also used for apropos and M-x.
>
| M-x?
minibuffer messages.
--
Lgb
On 10.06.05, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >>> Have a look at lib/generate_contributions.py which is used to generate
> >>> lib/CREDITS, credits.php and blanket_permission.php . I guess that the
> >>> idea of "one source, several outputs" is what you're looking for here
> >>>
On 10.06.05, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lars> And all of this is 1.5 stuff anyway.
>
> This is why I proposed to maintain this information in a standalone
> file. When we decide what to do in 1.5, it will hopefully be possible
>
On 10.06.05, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> "G. Milde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On 9.06.05, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >> | On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, G. Milde wrote:
> >> >> > G> ... all the lfuns should have some usage doc (telling the
> >> >> > G> expected arguments).
> | Currently, in Ly
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>>> Have a look at lib/generate_contributions.py which is used to generate
>>> lib/CREDITS, credits.php and blanket_permission.php . I guess that the
>>> idea of "one source, several outputs" is what you're looking for here
>>> too.
> | Unfortunately, This script both st
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Or was it documentation that happened to be used for tooltips.
Lars> AFAIK the strings was also used for apropos and M-x.
M-x?
Lars> Hmm, we don't do tooltops anymore? (or only from lib file?)
They are defined along with the
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
| Lars> Yeah... I don't know why we removed the cocumantaion from the
| Lars> array...
>
| Because it was not documentation but tooltips. These are different
| things. Now that the t
> "Jean-Marc" == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Jean-Marc" == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jean-Marc> My idea is that I do not believe the coders will be
Jean-Marc> motivated enough to make this documentation. So maybe Uwe
Jean-Marc> and Chrsit
> "G" == G Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
G> *Pro* of a "with source" documentation is, that it is provided by
G> the people knowing what is going on. And its (at least in theory)
G> easier to keep the documentation in sync.
This holds only if this information is kept up to date.
G> *Pro*
> "Jean-Marc" == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jean-Marc> My idea is that I do not believe the coders will be
Jean-Marc> motivated enough to make this documentation. So maybe Uwe
Jean-Marc> and Chrsitian c
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Yeah... I don't know why we removed the cocumantaion from the
Lars> array...
Because it was not documentation but tooltips. These are different
things. Now that the tooltips are removed, we can think about adding
the real docum
"G. Milde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 9.06.05, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> | On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, G. Milde wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 8.06.05, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> >> > > "G" == G Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > G> ... all the lfun
"G. Milde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 9.06.05, Angus Leeming wrote:
>> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
>> > I'd propose to use the exact inverse method: maintain the lfun
>> > documentation outside of source tree in an easy to parse format, so
>> > that we can decide to merge it in the source
On 9.06.05, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > I'd propose to use the exact inverse method: maintain the lfun
> > documentation outside of source tree in an easy to parse format, so
> > that we can decide to merge it in the sources later :)
> > I guess this can be done from o
On 9.06.05, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> | On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, G. Milde wrote:
> >
> >> On 8.06.05, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >> > > "G" == G Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > G> ... all the lfuns should have some usage doc (telling the
> >> > G
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> Have a look at lib/generate_contributions.py which is used to
Angus> generate lib/CREDITS, credits.php and blanket_permission.php .
Angus> I guess that the idea of "one source, several outputs" is what
Angus> you're looking for here
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> chr> Going off on a slight tangent, what if we put some cursory
> chr> documentation of the lfuns in the *source* code using wiki
> chr> markup? Then I could write a simple script that periodically
> chr> extracts that markup and inserts it into some suitable wiki
> ch
On 9.06.05, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "chr" == chr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> chr> Going off on a slight tangent, what if we put some cursory
> chr> documentation of the lfuns in the *source* code using wiki
> chr> markup? T
> I'd propose to use the exact inverse method: maintai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, G. Milde wrote:
>
>> On 8.06.05, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> > > "G" == G Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > G> ... all the lfuns should have some usage doc (telling the
>> > G> expected arguments).
>> >
>> > docstrings are gone in 1.
> "chr" == chr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
chr> Going off on a slight tangent, what if we put some cursory
chr> documentation of the lfuns in the *source* code using wiki
chr> markup? Then I could write a simple script that periodically
chr> extracts that markup and inserts it into some suita
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, G. Milde wrote:
> On 8.06.05, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > > "G" == G Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > G> ... all the lfuns should have some usage doc (telling the
> > G> expected arguments).
> >
> > docstrings are gone in 1.4.0cvs. They were actually tooltips f
47 matches
Mail list logo
