Yes, indeed… Knuth’s Literary Programming was one radical
(yet very static and Book-Like) try.
We added the tutorials, that is already better than just the class comment,
but they are then not “connected” with the code…
So indeed: a lot of open space for research + practical improvements.
For Slots I will stay very old fashioned and write a Tutorial.
Marcus
> On 01 Jun 2015, at 11:44, tsl4 <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> As usual, though, a lot of interesting ideas emerge from this.
>
> If we were to do documentation in a "Smalltalky" way, then what would it
> look like?
>
> Perhaps something like Doug Engelbart's NLS system, in outlines, but each
> element of the outline would have an associative history to it. That would
> mean breaking the process of description down to familiar component parts.
> Selecting a version of the software would flow through the outline, calling
> up the appropriate historical elements. That would enable comparative
> documentation.
>
> Or is it possible to find some kind of self documentation that would be
> better than the useful but a little crude class comments?
>
> It seems like such a basic thing to get right, but really very little work
> has been done on it.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/Slot-questions-tp4679631p4829738.html> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Locked
