Undocumented C functions
jerry.gay at gmail.com
Sat Jun 26 21:12:20 UTC 2010
please do more than a cursory look at the text of the patch. we're
coming up on a supported release in the next few weeks, and one that
will mark a milestone as it is intended to be the version of parrot
that runs under the first release of rakudo star. poor documentation
will break something extremely important: users' expectations. let's
work hard this month to deliver our best documented and most reliable
parrot ever released, and take pride in doing it.
cursory reports are fine (we're all volunteers), but not sufficient to
make parrot's documentation something that our users deserve.
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 11:24, Michael Hind <mike.hind at gmail.com> wrote:
> looks good to me, can't see anything glaringly obvious wrong.
> If it passes the tests commit it. It is not as though it will break
> anything (famous last words).
> Cheers, Michael (mikehh)
> On 26 June 2010 16:14, James E Keenan <jkeen at verizon.net> wrote:
>> James E Keenan wrote:
>>> Status of efforts in cfunctionsdocs branch:
>> 1. Deleted two files and some related code per comments from Andy
>> 2. Made what I thought were reasonable POD corrections to
>> 3. Provided at least minimal documentation for remaining C functions.
>> Can we get some eyeballs on the attached patch? If it's satisfactory
>> (with or without content modifications), then I can merge the cfunctionsdocs
>> into trunk. From that point forward, any failures in
>> t/codingstd/c_function_docs.t will represent new C functions added to the
>> repository without documentation.
>> Thank you very much.
> Michael H. Hind
> Cell: +44 (0) 7877 224 745
More information about the parrot-dev