1. New Docs, new layout
- Posted by Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy at ?o?gar.com> May 02, 2008
- 647 views
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
- Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at ya?oo.co?> May 02, 2008
- 603 views
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
- Posted by Shawn Pringle <shawn.pringle at gm?il.?om> May 02, 2008
- 622 views
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
- Posted by Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy at cowga??com> May 02, 2008
- 655 views
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
- 634 views
- 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.