John J Foerch writes:
> There seems to be an error in dbus:send in the dbus egg. As a test
> case, the first example given in the dbus egg docs will show the
> problem:
>
> http://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/4/dbus#examples-you-can-test-with-qt
On further research, it seems that the bulk of the prob
Christian Kellermann writes:
> Hi John!
>
>> This is misleading. It should say "send a signal" instead of "message".
>> The second clause is also misleading, because there is simply no
>> response to wait for.
>>
>> Then the examples just need to be fixed up to use dbus:call instead of
>> dbus:s
Christian Kellermann writes:
> * John J Foerch [110316 17:59]:
>> Okay, great. For some reason I hadn't noticed that I could edit that
>> page. I thought the egg pages were auto-generated from inline comments
>> in the eggs themselves (or something). So I will work on cleaning that
>> up and c
Hi John!
> This is misleading. It should say "send a signal" instead of "message".
> The second clause is also misleading, because there is simply no
> response to wait for.
>
> Then the examples just need to be fixed up to use dbus:call instead of
> dbus:send. The second example uses dbus:send
Hi John,
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:55:54 -0400 John J Foerch wrote:
> Christian Kellermann writes:
>>
>>> This is misleading. It should say "send a signal" instead of "message".
>>> The second clause is also misleading, because there is simply no
>>> response to wait for.
>>>
>>> Then the exampl
* John J Foerch [110316 17:59]:
> Christian Kellermann writes:
> > Hi John!
> >
> >> This is misleading. It should say "send a signal" instead of "message".
> >> The second clause is also misleading, because there is simply no
> >> response to wait for.
> >>
> >> Then the examples just need to
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Mario Domenech Goulart
wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:55:54 -0400 John J Foerch
> wrote:
>
>> Christian Kellermann writes:
>>>
This is misleading. It should say "send a signal" instead of "message".
The second clause is also misleading,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 02:58:59PM -0300, Stephen Eilert wrote:
> > Documentation for eggs is usually manually written. As far as I know,
> > nobody uses automatic extraction of comments from code.
>
> And that's a shame.
Why?
Almost all the "extracted" documentation I've seen is of shitty qual
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 02:58:59PM -0300, Stephen Eilert wrote:
>> > Documentation for eggs is usually manually written. As far as I know,
>> > nobody uses automatic extraction of comments from code.
>>
>> And that's a shame.
>
> Why?
>
> Almost
Stephen Eilert scripsit:
> One can make the argument that it would be *easier* to document the
> code because you are looking at it, it is sitting right next to the
> docs. If you are reading it in the source you can even spot the fact
> that, say, a function's arguments are documented wrong, beca
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 04:52:45PM -0300, Stephen Eilert wrote:
> > Almost all the "extracted" documentation I've seen is of shitty quality;
> > people tend to use automatic extraction of docs as an excuse not to
> > write proper documentation.
>
> As opposed to not writing it at all, or having it
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 04:39:46PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>> Egg documentation should not be documentation of the code (implementation)
>> of the egg, but of its interface.
>
> Thank you for that. You made my point more concisely than I could
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 04:39:46PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Egg documentation should not be documentation of the code (implementation)
> of the egg, but of its interface.
Thank you for that. You made my point more concisely than I could
ever hope to.
Cheers,
Peter
--
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
Hello,
>
> Documentation for eggs is usually manually written. As far as I know,
> nobody uses automatic extraction of comments from code.
>
Look at the contracts egg. Using it, you will not only get automatic
documentation of your modules but also a simple version of "Design by
Contract" inv
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 04:52:45PM -0300, Stephen Eilert wrote:
>> > Almost all the "extracted" documentation I've seen is of shitty quality;
>> > people tend to use automatic extraction of docs as an excuse not to
>> > write proper documentation
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 09:17:13AM -0400, John Gabriele wrote:
> > You can also make the argument that you're being distracted by the way
> > the code is laid out. If you are documenting completely separately,
> > you can think about the flow of text that makes most sense, grouping
> > procedures
16 matches
Mail list logo
