Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[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.