Hi Jim, > It DOES do all the function header and parameter parsing. It gives a > series of HTML pages that are all nicely cross-linked, decently styled and > perfect for the (already static) dev doc site. >
That right there is the reason which makes it a no-go for me. Frankly I am with Felix on this one. You think it won't be that much effort > to add it to TW, and maybe with what Jeremy was pointing at, that's true. > Adding it may not be difficult, but it will tremendously constrain our workflow and means to present things the way we want or need, rather than they think is most suitable. > But I was looking at the project as "Let's get this stuff documented to > help people (like me) bleeding through trying to understand how all the > code fits together NOW," and not another feature to add to TW (isn't there > a moratorium? :) > Yes! Perfectily fits the moratorium and would possibly be a prime candidate for the top of the "documentation taskforce todo list". To me, the thing worth investing time in was actually adding the > documentation comments to the code (which doesn't affect the code in ways > that needs extensive testing) to then get the documentation generated and > PUBLISHED quickly. To me as well, and I will possibly keep on waving that flag not to adopt jsdoc or yuidoc or foodoc. > I could get behind volunteering to write some of that documentation > (because doing so would help me solidify my understanding of the codebase > as a whole). Great! And I believe once we have stamped out the workflow, we can and should go ahead and start documenting functions, whether we have that parser up and running or not. I wasn't looking for yet another coding project, which the TW approach > would entail, so am not that interested in volunteering for that. Finite > amount of time, different priorities and all that. The thing is, not using TiddlyWiki will create more work and constraints... is what I think. We do want our stuff documented the way we need it, e.g. including other reference content for example. Using some predefined xdoc templates will be a pain in the b. The TW approach may be more "TW-pure," and more power to whoever implements > it. > I am quite certain it will actually boost the project as a lot of people will be quite interested in using it themselves seeing how simple it will be. Sure, it will also be simple with YUIDOC, simple in the way they think is best for you... not my cup. Not because I wnt to do it my way, but because I know we can do better and should. To me, this is what TiddlyWiki is made for and good for, not just some basic "nonlinear personal notebook". ;-) Best wishes, Tobias. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
