Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Kenneth Cochran wrote: > Now I'm trying to track down how the source editor invokes FPDoc support > when you hover over an identifier. A search for FPDoc in the source turned > up the CodeHelp unit. Anyone know if I'm on the right track? Yes. See also : TMainID

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Juha Manninen wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Kenneth Cochran > wrote: > > Anyone have > > a ballpark guess as to how much effort would it take to extend the > tooltip > > for the component pallet to display the tag from the FPDoc info? > > The hint is

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Kenneth Cochran wrote: > Anyone have > a ballpark guess as to how much effort would it take to extend the tooltip > for the component pallet to display the tag from the FPDoc info? The hint is set in unit ide/ComponentPalette, line 744 in Lazarus trunk. I don't h

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Kenneth Cochran wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Mattias Gaertner < > nc-gaert...@netcologne.de> wrote: > >> Do you mean hovering over the component in the designer? >> At the moment the hint shows only the caption and some common values. >> It could

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Mattias Gaertner wrote: > Do you mean hovering over the component in the designer? > At the moment the hint shows only the caption and some common values. > It could be extended to show the help for the variable. Feel free to > create a feature request. > > I thin

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

On 17/07/13 00:56, vfclists . wrote: It is hardly for the end users sake unless the enduser is a programmer. we're talking about programming languages here, so that... whoever else shall an end user of a development tool/library be?!?!?!? X_X ___

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

On 17/07/13 00:56, vfclists . wrote: I completely disagree. It is the code that is the primary expression of intent not the comments. This is mainly accomplished through sensible identifier naming. I perfectly agree, a well formed name is worth a thousand words, in this context.

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:56:33 +0100 "vfclists ." wrote: >[...] > I have 2 main concerns here, a comment for the component itself which is > not particularly important and a comment for the component when I add it to > a form or data module. When I create a method I can add a comment to the > metho

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

On 7/16/2013 17:56, vfclists . wrote: I have 2 main concerns here, a comment for the component itself which is not particularly important and a comment for the component when I add it to a form or data module. When I create a method I can add a comment to the method. If I create a component in co

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

On 15 July 2013 22:58, Kenneth Cochran wrote: > > > > I completely disagree. It is the code that is the primary expression of > intent not the comments. This is mainly accomplished through sensible > identifier naming. Comments exist to compensate for a developer's inability > to express intent t

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:07 AM, vfclists . wrote: > > This attitude which exists in the Pascal community needs to end. I say > Pascal not FreePascal because when I examine a lot of free Delphi libraries > I see the same thing. Lots and lots of code and not a comment in sight. It > makes stuff ne

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

On 2013-07-12 10:48, vfclists . wrote: > > Anyway I am not talking about documentation as such, just a property that > an object can be queried about on its role, ie: class documentation :) Regards, G. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lis

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

On 12 July 2013 09:09, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > On 2013-07-12 07:07, vfclists . wrote: > > Coding time is the best > > time for documentation because that is when the intent of the code is > clear > > and fresh in the developers mind, and incurs minimal additional cost. > > > And you just said

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

On 2013-07-12 07:07, vfclists . wrote: > Coding time is the best > time for documentation because that is when the intent of the code is clear > and fresh in the developers mind, and incurs minimal additional cost. And you just said it yourself. If the developer of the code doesn't even have the

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

>Enough digression - if considered carefully a comment about the purpose of an object belongs in the object definition itself. I use Pasdoc for that On 07/12/2013 08:07 AM, vfclists . wrote: On 11 July 2013 23:07, Benito van der Zander > wrote: Annotations

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 07:07:05 +0100 "vfclists ." wrote: > This attitude which exists in the Pascal community needs to end. Not really. R. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?

On 11 July 2013 23:07, Benito van der Zander wrote: > Annotations like in Java would be nice... > > > On 07/11/2013 10:22 PM, vfclists . wrote: > > Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property? > > I think they should. One for the design itself and one for describing the > usage at de