[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Documentation requirements: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPT

From: Leonid Pauzner
Subject: Re: Documentation requirements: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS:
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 03:04:11 +0300 (MSK)

19-Nov-99 22:59 David Combs wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 02:50:24PM -0500, T.E.Dickey wrote:
>> > From: Philip Webb <address@hidden>
>> > PW>yes, if we all accept that authors of features & their modifications
>> > PW>should be required to document them (allowing for language 
>> > difficulties),
>> > PW>but i hesitate to ask TD to take on the task of doing the requiring.
>> given that it would be a radical change in policy, I don't think it would
>> work out.

> But who else CAN write it?  Or at least write, however badly,
> however un-stylishly, explanations of:

> .  Why this feature was needed.

> .  What one can do with this feature (a little brain-storming,
>    please), with examples of exactly HOW to use it.

> .  The various options, and WHY they were added, and what you
>    can do WITH them.

> Once the software is turned over to lynx, well, it's too
> late for documentation -- no one has time.

> Only by REQUIRING it for acceptance will it get done --
> and that very time is when it is all freshest in the
> implementor's mind.

And this is you, David, who never submitting patches yourself as far as
I remember... Well, all the above *should* be done by the author, it is
(usually) documented in CHANGES, other files and/or comments in *.c
files. But this is depending on taste, a very personal preferences, so
we will discuss this in certain cases on the list which is the way of
living of this list, isn't it?

> And that time is also when it is EASIEST to do it.

> ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]