Florian Weimer writes:
>>> Duplication is how other GNU projects handle this. For instance, many
>>> Emacs Lisp functions are documented twice: once as a docstring in the
>>> source code (which is roughly equivalent to the comment-in-spec
>>> approach), and once in the Elisp reference (which is G
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Hi Rick (and others),
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> This question would have been more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing
>>> list. -Ian Lance Taylor
>> My apologies to everyone. I did not know such a list existed.
>
>
Hi Rick (and others),
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> This question would have been more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing
>> list. -Ian Lance Taylor
> My apologies to everyone. I did not know such a list existed.
all of our web pages have a footer which refers to gcc-help, but
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, gccad...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
> gcc-4.3-20100815.tar.bz2 Complete GCC (includes all of below)
>
>
> SHA1=4fa7230c4535f91521bda26cc225508fe0b4e626
In case anyone wonders, given the weakness of md5 I added sha1 as an
additional hash¹. md5 is just
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20100815 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20100815/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
* Joel Sherrill:
>> This approach is far less useful for languages which haven't got
>> separate spec files because it encourages programmers of client code
>> to look at the implementation, potentially picking up implementation
>> details. It encourages the documentation writer to accidentally r
On 08/15/2010 04:09 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Robert Dewar:
Duplication is how other GNU projects handle this. For instance, many
Emacs Lisp functions are documented twice: once as a docstring in the
source code (which is roughly equivalent to the comment-in-spec
approach), and once in t
* Robert Dewar:
> In the case of interfaces to library routines, what we do
> is to have fully commented Ada package specs that act as
> both the documentation of the implementation interface and
> as the user documentation (for an example, look at g-spipat.ads).
> I can't see any value in duplica
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Robert Dewar:
Does *anyone* print documentation "out as a book", this seems to me
to be a completely obsolete concept.
People still buy books which are available freely in electronic form.
This means that some printing still goes on.
I think there is a difference bet
> This approach is far less useful for languages which haven't got
> separate spec files
But there aren't many of those! In C, a ".h" file can easily be viewed as
a "separate spec file" and interface documentation can and should be placed
there, though I understand that few coding conventions cal
* Robert Dewar:
>> People still buy books which are available freely in electronic form.
>> This means that some printing still goes on.
>
> I think there is a difference between a novel you can hold and
> read, and computer documentation. My question was not whether
> anyone reads books any more,
* Robert Dewar:
> Does *anyone* print documentation "out as a book", this seems to me
> to be a completely obsolete concept.
People still buy books which are available freely in electronic form.
This means that some printing still goes on.
It might also be necessary to consider what it means whe
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Robert Dewar:
In the case of interfaces to library routines, what we do
is to have fully commented Ada package specs that act as
both the documentation of the implementation interface and
as the user documentation (for an example, look at g-spipat.ads).
I can't see any v
Florian Weimer wrote:
I was still referring to computer documentation, but admittedly not
reference manuals, rather works like introductory texts which have got
some sort of narrative strucuture which guides the reader.
For reference manuals, it takes a huge amount of effort to make the
printed
> I think there is a difference between a novel you can hold and
> read, and computer documentation. My question was not whether
> anyone reads books any more, it was whether people read computer
> manuals in this form any more.
To me, it depends on the type of manual and whether it's for somethin
* Robert Dewar:
>> Duplication is how other GNU projects handle this. For instance, many
>> Emacs Lisp functions are documented twice: once as a docstring in the
>> source code (which is roughly equivalent to the comment-in-spec
>> approach), and once in the Elisp reference (which is GFDLed).
>
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
