Undocumented C functions
mike.hind at gmail.com
Sat Jun 26 22:25:34 UTC 2010
Apologies, if I was being a little light hearted there.
I did spend more than a few minutes looking at the patch. Obviously in some
of the cases, documentation could be expanded, but this applies to most of
the POD in parrot.
I have spent quite a bit of time over the last few months looking at the C
function documentation situation, mainly from the point of view of getting
the files to pass the tests.
At one stage I inserted all the boilerplate headers, and some of the
documentation. but could not always determine exactly what the function was
doing, so at that stage did not add further documentation. From that point
of view, I have at one stage or another, had a look at the functions
included in the patch, and as I mentioned, if a little on the light hearted
side, the documentation added does not conflict with what I have seen
My main emphasis has been on testing parrot and making sure as far as
possible that the tests pass. Certainly, I feel that the documentation is
important, and as far as possible have worked on that as well.
Cheers, Michael (mikehh)
On 26 June 2010 22:12, jerry gay <jerry.gay at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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:
> > kid51,
> > 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
> >> Dougherty.
> >> 2. Made what I thought were reasonable POD corrections to
> >> compilers/pirc/src/pircapi.c.
> >> 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
> >> into trunk. From that point forward, any failures in
> >> t/codingstd/c_function_docs.t will represent new C functions added to
> >> repository without documentation.
> >> Thank you very much.
> >> kid51
> > --
> > Michael H. Hind
> > Cell: +44 (0) 7877 224 745
> > _______________________________________________
> > http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
Michael H. Hind
Cell: +44 (0) 7877 224 745
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the parrot-dev