[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions
From: |
Richard Frith-Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions |
Date: |
Sun, 08 May 2005 20:01:56 +0100 |
On 2005-05-08 19:26:12 +0100 Alex Perez <aperez@student.santarosa.edu> wrote:
However, for simplification, we can treat the opriginal OpenStep spec as
MacOS-X version 0.0 and the NeXT releases of the OPENSTEP system as being
versions 4.0, 4.1, 4.2 (can't remember if OPENSTEP ever got beyond 4.2).
I think whether or not a class was introduced in OPENSTEP 4.0, 4.1, or 4.2,
at this point, is completely irrelevant, and I personally am not going to
research this. Besides, we work off the OpenStep specification, not
anything
else, when it comes to the original API documentation. For the newer
apple-added stuff, we just need to note which version of OS X the API was
introduced, as well as which version of of GNUstep it was implemented in.
So what do you advocate for the parts of the API which were introduced after
OpenStep, but before MacOS-X, and the parts of the API which were in
OpenStep but were removed before MacOS-X was released?
Now, I guess you could just build up a table of this information, or you
could edit the headers...
I plan to document it in the same place where the method documentation is,
for the sake of consistency, which is not in the headers.
Except where it IS in the headers...
We could define a standard macro to handle versioning, taking two
arguments
indicating the version at which the method was introduced, and the version
at which it was removed.
I am not at all convinced that implementing these over-the-top and IMHO
unnecessary/not-very-useful macros are worth my time. If you really think
they are of value to you, I would of course encourage you or anyone else
who
needs this level of functionality to implement this, but I myself am not
willing to invest the needed time into this specific aspect of things.
I am quite happy to implement this simple macro ... I was suggesting that
you use it to produce the documentation markup, as it would be (as far as I
can see) the simplest/quickest way of producing the markup.
- Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions, (continued)
- Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions, Sheldon Gill, 2005/05/05
- Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions, Alex Perez, 2005/05/05
- Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions, Alex Perez, 2005/05/07
- Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2005/05/08
- Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions, Alex Perez, 2005/05/08
- Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions,
Richard Frith-Macdonald <=
- Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions, Alex Perez, 2005/05/08
- Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2005/05/09
- Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2005/05/09
- Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions, David Ayers, 2005/05/09
- Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions, Jeff Teunissen, 2005/05/23
Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions, Sheldon Gill, 2005/05/01
Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions, Sheldon Gill, 2005/05/01