Mattias Gaertner schrieb:
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".
Sounds good.
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?
Who can know that for sure?
The final documenation shows the element name, so that the short
description should not duplicate this name, IMO. Opinions?
What do you purpose instead?
A description without duplication of the name. The need for a different
description can remove mental barriers, which otherwise can cause
repetition of the obvious.
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.
Yes, I suggested that as a workaround. But the short description is not
editable in that page. I prefer to have the long description visible
while coding, and when I want to insert a missing (short) description, I
have to switch pages.
[...]
The same for parameters, whose separate descriptions are not normally
accessible in e.g. the FPDoc editor.
ToDo. Please create a feature request.
Okay.
[...]
As already mentioned in another mail, all links to #LCL are broken now.
I changed the #LCL to #LCLBase in the lcl xml files.
Argh :-(
DoDi
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
