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

[REBOL] Re: documenting

From: al:bri:xtra at: 31-Aug-2002 9:08

jose wrote:
> Do you consider that your Values functions are in to the higher
documentation standard ? To me, that is the basic way to document proposed by rebol and more than enough (in fact more than basic, because you include Example in many headers and I recall RT has separate files with more info like examples, etc..). I don't view that as a rewrite. What ideas you have on this ? Sorry, I misunderstood your post. I had believed that you needed to document just one function, implying that the author of the function didn't understand the function's purpose well enough to write a good description as Rebol code. Sorry about that. Most of my Values functions include the Example in the header, which is useful when I forget how to use the function! (That's a sign to me that the function probably isn't intuitive enough yet.) I also need to revisit those few that aren't up to scratch and fix them up.
> Going back to your Values lib, I'm sure you have very useful functions but
without an automatic summary like the one I propose it's hard for others to adopt (think of learning rebol core but not having a list of the functions, ..) Yes, this automatic summary would be very good. A dictionary can be generated by loading all the scripts in the Values/ directory (basically running the %Values.r script from %User.r) and simply running the dictionary script from Which (after fixing a bug in my %Patches.r script), doesn't actually show my Values/ functions? Hmmm... I feel that the dictionary idea is best, once I find out how to get my Values/ to be included. Does anyone know how to do this? I'm almost sure it's probably a simple modification of make-ref.r Andrew Martin ICQ: 26227169