[REBOL] Re: Comments about make-doc-pro?
From: dness:home at: 9-Aug-2001 11:15
Robert M. Muench
wrote:
> > Reading the code is fine, for documentation, but it doesn't give
> > sufficient overview to actually make the process useful.
>
> What process are you referring too?
I was (in a muddled fashion) referring to `the process' of getting a document
prepared. What I didn't get from reading the code was sort of an overview of
the process as in (1) run make-doc-pro; (2) It offers current directory file list
and you select file; (3) it runs and outputs to ...
Something like that.
> > If you are not intending to supply further information, I'd make it more
> extensive.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here...
What I was trying to say was _if_ your _only_ documentation was reading the code, then
I'd make the comments in the code more extensive. If you are planning a `separate document'
then I'll await that.
> > In most circumstances I want to be able to do something with the HTML
> > that results from the translation, so I would much prefer that this be written
> > into a file than that it appear `live'.
>
> ?? The output is written into a file ?? The generated HTML code is very dense
> and doesn't provide a nice outline. How about adding a pretty-print feature?
I'll have to look again at the =file command, I may not understand its function, and
it may be confusing my world-view.
...
> Yes, there is even the eText project from Andrew. We have discussed a lot about
> all these things. But I wanted to keep the make-doc spirit and be compatible to
> make-doc files, so that make-doc-pro might even adapted by Rebol Technologies.
I'd say you succeeded.
