On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> As usual, I mess things up :( sorry about that. I meant 'autogenerated
> docs'.
no problem :)
> Currently we don't have autogenerated docs, right? I was just thinking how
> 'make docs' should invoke other utils to create these autogenerated docs,
> be
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> > let's try to go with the inlines first, if we see that it's not good. we
> > extract all the inlines into the separate .pod files. This is something
> > that we can do much easier than the reverse operatio
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> > let's try to go with the inlines first, if we see that it's not good. we
> > extract all the inlines into the separate .pod files. This is something
> > that we can do much easier than the reverse operatio
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> let's try to go with the inlines first, if we see that it's not good. we
> extract all the inlines into the separate .pod files. This is something
> that we can do much easier than the reverse operation, assuming that we
> want the snippets of pod to be
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> > So what do we decide about documentation style, so we can start
> > documenting things as we go? As I've replied to brian's email, I'm in
> > favor of inline docs if it doesn't make the code harder to read
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> So what do we decide about documentation style, so we can start
> documenting things as we go? As I've replied to brian's email, I'm in
> favor of inline docs if it doesn't make the code harder to read.
that's fine, i still would rather see each module
On 24 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> sbekman 01/06/24 01:15:21
>
> Modified:Apache-Test/lib/Apache TestServer.pm
> Log:
> - comply with return API convention (undocumented)
> - start to document the API
I've thrown in a very basic API doc for stop(). Obviously I would do
're
