[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam
From: |
address@hidden |
Subject: |
Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:26:26 +0100 |
On 13 févr. 2013, at 12:02, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>> It is just a matter of writing documentation strings as you invent
>>> new callbacks. Pretty much a no-brainer not needing any
>>> organization.
>>
>> It is definitely a brainer, as it would require retroactively
>> documenting 276 MAKE_SCHEME_CALLBACKs. It would take coordinated
>> effort to get all of this stuff documented.
>
> You are missing David's point, I think. He wonders why you are coding
> callbacks without writing a documentation string.
>
Because when I started coding for the project, there was not a single use of
MAKE_DOCUMENTED_SCHEME_CALLBACK whereas there are currently 276 uses of
MAKE_SCHEME_CALLBACK. All my programming education has come from reading
LilyPond source code, so I tend to follow the conventions therein.
I would rather make a concerted effort where people decide on a style for
documenting our API (standardizing function names, documentation style, etc.)
and then we do it rather than doing a piecemeal job. Someone needs to lead
this. Graham did this sort of thing for documentation a few years back and it
was an excellent idea. The discussion could be organized in the same way as
GOP and GLISS stuff. Someone who cares about this can organize it and I'd be
happy not only to follow whatever standards are established but also help to
document the 276 scheme callbacks in C++ that are currently undocumented.
Cheers,
MS
- collision beam with staff-crossing beam, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/02/12
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/02/12
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, Janek Warchoł, 2013/02/12
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/02/13
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, address@hidden, 2013/02/13
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/02/13
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, address@hidden, 2013/02/13
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, David Kastrup, 2013/02/13
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, address@hidden, 2013/02/13
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/02/13
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam,
address@hidden <=
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, David Kastrup, 2013/02/13
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, address@hidden, 2013/02/13
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, David Kastrup, 2013/02/13
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/02/13
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, David Kastrup, 2013/02/13
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/02/13
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/02/13
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, David Kastrup, 2013/02/13
- Re: collision beam with staff-crossing beam, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/02/13