On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:20:42 +0100 Hans-Peter Diettrich <drdiettri...@aol.com> wrote:
>[...] > Style related are field names like "childs", which IMO should read > "Children" Yes. >[...] > Often I come across "circles", referring to circular unit references. > IMO the correct term instead would be "loops", in e.g. "avoid loops". AFAIK the correct term in graph theory is "cycle". > Many descriptions only describe the obvious, like method names expressed > in more words. Such descriptions are quite useless, and should be > replaced by more informative ones. I'd suggest to remove all these > descriptions (replace by a todo-marker?), until somebody can describe > the elements better. I doubt that this should be done for all. What if the method just does what the name says? > The final documenation shows the element name, so that the short > description should not duplicate this name, IMO. Opinions? What do you purpose instead? > Related: the FPDoc Editor IMO should always show the short description, > above the pages. Then it's easier to e.g. avoid duplication of the short > description in the long description. The short description is already shown above the long description. >[...] > The same for parameters, whose separate descriptions are not normally > accessible in e.g. the FPDoc editor. ToDo. Please create a feature request. >[...] > As already mentioned in another mail, all links to #LCL are broken now. I changed the #LCL to #LCLBase in the lcl xml files. >[...] Mattias -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus