Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Doug Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > > | Now look at the undocumented or poorly documented code and try changing it! > | I think Tim's comments of writing for the humans that will have to > | change- improve it, is fundamental. I gust have to look at some of > | my code written 20 years ago to see how vitally important Tim's > | statement is. > > It appears to me that people seem to think that disagreeing with > Tim's dogmatic pamphlet style is disagreeing with better and well > documented Axiom system. Nothing could be farther from truth.
No, or at least I don't see it that way. I view it more as a disagreement about method than a disagreement about the end goal. > As a matter of fact, almost all of the existing pamphlets pass Tim's > pamphlet test only at the syntax level. On that point, I agree - in fact, I don't see how anyone could disagree. And for myself, much as I would prefer to be working on units and dimensions, I am having to take a "from square one" approach to understanding how the system works. I figure as long as that must be done anyway, I may as well try to do something useful to contribute at that level. > And the ones that look > advanced documentation look to me poorer than non-pamphletized > documentation -- e.g. I have far less trouble reading > and trying to undestand SBCL source code than reading and > understanding bookvol5 and friends and the rest of the system. As I understand it, bookvol5 is nowhere near completion. What is your take on dhmatrix? As I understand it that file is closer to a "proper" literate document. Or, for that matter, what about cl-web? Cheers, CY _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
