Brandon Savage wrote:
Torben,
This is good stuff. I have the following suggestions:
1. I would add links to the basic.xml page in the paragraph where you
state "A class may contain its own variables, constants, and functions."
I'd link to the sections on properties, constants and methods.
Sounds good; I agree. There's not a methods section of its own yet,
however. I'll take a look at that too.
2. I would also add in parenthesis after you describe variables and
functions the words property and method, to make clear that classes have
properties and methods, not variables and functions (even though the
syntax is the same).
I do intend to put this in but just haven't made myself happy with the
wording yet.
In an earlier draft I had words to this effect, but it just got to be
unwieldy, since it felt like if I explained that some people call class
variables "properties", I should explain that others call them "members"
or "member variables" or "attributes" or what-have-you. I'll work on it
more. :)
These, of course, are style suggestions, and not problems with your
documentation. I think the work you've done is great, and +1 from me on
committing the changes.
Best,
Brandon
Thanks for the notes (and the kind words).
Cheers,
Torben
