1. New Docs, new layout
When adding many new functions and then trying to document those functions, then
with the addition of new includes using namespaces, the current method of
grouping the function reference by A-B, C-D, etc... became very difficult. I
spoke to Rob and with his blessing, I've changed the way the documentation works
a bit. I will update the doc processing before the release of 3.2/4.0 to include
an alphabetical index of all functions, but that is not there yet.
The new docs add's a navigation toolbar to the top and bottom of the library
reference, and it also groups functions by their functional group, not by
alphabetical order. So, on one page, you can view all the functions dealing with
sequences. On another page, you can view all the functions dealing with the
operating system, etc...
The library page is still there that lists all the functions with a short
description grouped by their functional type.
I have compiled the new documentation and placed it on my web server for others
to view and comment on. Here are a few key URL's you will want to visit:
Starting point:
http://jeremy.cowgar.com/euphoria/overview.htm
Where things begin to change:
http://jeremy.cowgar.com/euphoria/library.htm
Where you can see a functional grouping page instead of an alphabetical
grouping:
http://jeremy.cowgar.com/euphoria/lib_math.htm
This is a rough draft, so please let me know what you think.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
2. Re: New Docs, new layout
With only a glance so far, I like it. Familiar, yet functional. I'll dig in a
bit more.
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
system that works.
--John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.
3. Re: New Docs, new layout
Hey Jeremy,
Two things: Firstly, I found two functions in the category 'C-Interface';
free_console(), and msg_box(). These two functions have nothing to do with
the C-interface itself. I suppose they are there until you can think of a
better category? How about 'User Interface'? Secondly, there are so many
types that seem to be only implemented as functions. Why not implement them
as types to extend their functionality? These types include isxdigit(),
for example.
Shawn Pringle
4. Re: New Docs, new layout
Shawn Pringle wrote:
>
> Hey Jeremy,
>
> Two things: Firstly, I found two functions in the category 'C-Interface';
> free_console(), and msg_box(). These two functions have nothing to do with
> the C-interface itself. I suppose they are there until you can think of a
> better category? How about 'User Interface'?
Yeah, I didn't like that either when I put them there, however, I did not
categorize them as C-interface. In the current docs they are listed under
C-interface, so I just stuck with it.
http://rapideuphoria.com/library.htm#call_c_func
>Secondly, there are so many
> types that seem to be only implemented as functions. Why not implement them
> as types to extend their functionality? These types include isxdigit(),
> for example.
I was thinking of that, but do we want types for all those C is??? functions?
i.e. the types would be: alnum, alpha, ascii, cntrl, digit, graph, lower, print,
punct, space, upper, xdigit ... some of thse in there we cannot use (lower,
print, upper) and others would be confusing as a type (space, graph).
I was unsure of exactly how to handle them. So, I found others using the names
of the standard C functions found in ctypes.h, isascii, isdigit, etc...
However, I think the section you found those in is called Type Checking, not
really Types?
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
5. Re: New Docs, new layout
- Posted by Alan F <acf.projects at gm?il?com>
May 02, 2008
-
Last edited May 03, 2008
Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
>
> Shawn Pringle wrote:
> >
> > Hey Jeremy,
> >
> >Secondly, there are so many
> > types that seem to be only implemented as functions. Why not implement them
> > as types to extend their functionality? These types include isxdigit(),
> > for example.
>
> I was thinking of that, but do we want types for all those C is??? functions?
> i.e. the types would be: alnum, alpha, ascii, cntrl, digit, graph, lower,
> print,
> punct, space, upper, xdigit ... some of thse in there we cannot use (lower,
> print, upper) and others would be confusing as a type (space, graph).
>
I think it would be useful to have these as types rather than simply as
functions, but I agree that simply leaving the 'is' and dropping it entirely
to make the type name is not ideal. Perhaps some sort of prefix, like 't_',
in front of the name, so we have t_alnum, t_alpha, etc.
