On 12/30/2011 04:23 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
If that is at the expense of requiring a GUI system then IMHO it gets
worse rather than better:-)
+1
The generation should be callable from another script.
-Michael
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Michael Schnell schrieb:
On 12/30/2011 04:23 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
If that is at the expense of requiring a GUI system then IMHO it gets
worse rather than better:-)
+1
The generation should be callable from another script.
As it already is?
If you want to learn more about the
Bernd schrieb:
2011/12/30 Hans-Peter Diettrich drdiettri...@aol.com:
I don't understand why (platform specific) shell scripts shall be used for
documentation purposes - is Pascal not suited for such tasks? ;-)
How about putting all the functionality necessary to build the
documentation into
Mattias Gaertner schrieb:
For the units in the LCLBase see lcl/Makefile.compiled.
For units in the LCL interfaces use the
lcl/interfaces/*/Makefile.compiled.
Thanks :-)
Can I expect the Makefile.compiled in the directory of any .lpk file?
DoDi
--
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 10:02:21 +0100
Hans-Peter Diettrich drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
Mattias Gaertner schrieb:
For the units in the LCLBase see lcl/Makefile.compiled.
For units in the LCL interfaces use the
lcl/interfaces/*/Makefile.compiled.
Thanks :-)
Can I expect the
2011/12/30 Hans-Peter Diettrich drdiettri...@aol.com:
I don't understand why (platform specific) shell scripts shall be used for
documentation purposes - is Pascal not suited for such tasks? ;-)
How about putting all the functionality necessary to build the
documentation into lazbuild? It
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 11:52:59AM +0100, Bernd wrote:
I don't understand why (platform specific) shell scripts shall be used for
documentation purposes - is Pascal not suited for such tasks? ;-)
How about putting all the functionality necessary to build the
documentation into lazbuild? It
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:03:23 +0100
Hans-Peter Diettrich drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
As part of the 2.6.0 documentation effort, I regenerated the docs for FPC,
and as usual I also try to build the LCL docs. I had to create some XMLs for
non existing LCL units.
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:22:12 +0100
Hans-Peter Diettrich drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
Mattias Gaertner schrieb:
All three should get their own docs. LCL+LCLBase can be
bundled.
ACK
I also noticed some copies of the RTl docs in docs/xml/rtl but these don't
seem to be diffs/additions
Mattias Gaertner schrieb:
[Recommendations for better directory/project names are welcome :-]
It seems closely related to fpdoc, so maybe
examples/fpdocmgr
Fine, this will become the name of version 2.0 :-)
[...]
I also noticed some copies of the RTl docs in docs/xml/rtl but these don't
Mattias Gaertner schrieb:
Warning: Target ID of link in unit LDockCtrl is unknown:
#rtl.Classes.TComponent.Loaded
Warning: Target ID of link in unit LDockCtrl is unknown:
#rtl.Classes.TComponent.Notification
IMO the LDock... stuff is so outdated, that it should be removed from
the
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:33:58 +0100
Hans-Peter Diettrich drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
Mattias Gaertner schrieb:
Warning: Target ID of link in unit LDockCtrl is unknown:
#rtl.Classes.TComponent.Loaded
Warning: Target ID of link in unit LDockCtrl is unknown:
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
lazutils is now a separate package, and lcl references the new lazutils
package. Everything is done and committed, in theory generating CHMs is a
matter of installing dependencies, and then
running fixdocs.sh in the fpcdocs repo
and then running
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:52:34 +0100
Hans-Peter Diettrich drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
lazutils is now a separate package, and lcl references the new lazutils
package. Everything is done and committed, in theory generating CHMs is a
matter of installing
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 05:03:23AM +0100, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
As part of the 2.6.0 documentation effort, I regenerated the docs for FPC,
and as usual I also try to build the LCL docs. I had to create some XMLs for
non existing LCL units.
You're busy
On 30.12.2011 16:23, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Dunno, I also wonder when this (Unicode strings) change will be really
finished :-(
I don't know what that has to do with it. Current docs describe the 2.6
branch not the 2.7 branch which has unicodestrings. But these files are
already
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 05:03:23AM +0100, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
I've just finished a first version of an documentation manager, which
can create documentation projects for RTL, FCL, and any Lazarus
packages. Main usage: quick creation of the final
Sven Barth schrieb:
On 30.12.2011 16:23, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Dunno, I also wonder when this (Unicode strings) change will be really
finished :-(
I don't know what that has to do with it. Current docs describe the 2.6
branch not the 2.7 branch which has unicodestrings. But these files
Mattias Gaertner schrieb:
For the RTL and FCL documentation the fpcdocs Makefile can be used on
every platform, to produce the fully expanded fpdoc and makeskel
commandlines, which can be redirected into an file and parsed by the
docmgr. But how get the actual commandlines or compiler options
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:40:00 +0100
Hans-Peter Diettrich drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
Mattias Gaertner schrieb:
For the RTL and FCL documentation the fpcdocs Makefile can be used on
every platform, to produce the fully expanded fpdoc and makeskel
commandlines, which can be redirected
As part of the 2.6.0 documentation effort, I regenerated the docs for FPC,
and as usual I also try to build the LCL docs. I had to create some XMLs for
non existing LCL units.
I also commited a clenaed up version of the script I use to generate lcl.chm
as docs/html/build_lcl_chm.sh.
I noticed
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
Below is the condensed error list:
How does this error list relate to the rest of the e-mail? Do some of
them disappear if you use official rtl xml instead of the lazarus
copy? Or do those elements don't exist?
--
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:06:42 +0100
Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
As part of the 2.6.0 documentation effort, I regenerated the docs for FPC,
and as usual I also try to build the LCL docs. I had to create some XMLs for
non existing LCL units.
I also commited a clenaed up version
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 05:25:56PM -0200, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
Below is the condensed error list:
How does this error list relate to the rest of the e-mail?
It's the raw data that was the basis for the
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 08:23:57PM +0100, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
What is the plan with this package? Is it a part of the LCL or really an
optional component? The LCL docs refers to lazutf8 81 times. If it is just a
matter of generating an extra CHM and set up the buildscripts for it, just
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:15:41 +0100
Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 08:23:57PM +0100, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
What is the plan with this package? Is it a part of the LCL or really an
optional component? The LCL docs refers to lazutf8 81 times. If it is
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
As part of the 2.6.0 documentation effort, I regenerated the docs for FPC,
and as usual I also try to build the LCL docs. I had to create some XMLs for
non existing LCL units.
You're busy with Lazarus these days, too? :-)
I've just finished a first version of an
Mattias Gaertner schrieb:
All three should get their own docs. LCL+LCLBase can be
bundled.
ACK
I also noticed some copies of the RTl docs in docs/xml/rtl but these don't
seem to be diffs/additions but full copies (and now it is hard to find out
what these actually change). Can these be
Mattias Gaertner schrieb:
lclbase: lcl, lcl/forms, lcl/nonwin32, lcl/widgetset
lcl: lcl/interfaces/**
I'm not sure of the use of documentation for the lcl/interfaces/*. There
exist no references to the widgetset units in the source code, so that
almost no links to such documentation can be
29 matches
Mail list logo
