What is a well documented class?
Locked
12
12
 
|
Hi!
I am dreaming about a tool to help me document source code. The question I have is what is a well documented class? What do you think about the following: A well documented class is a class: - that contains a class comment - its class comments contains either an example, or an associated unit test - without 'as yet unclassified' method category - each public method belongs to a method category named public* - each private method belongs to a method category named private* - each method contains a comment, located before the declaration of temporary variables - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' - without commented code contained in its methods. Is there anything else? Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. |
Re: What is a well documented class?
|
|
for the class comment I would have
intention I'm doing that collaborations with the help of this class and that class main api my main public API is ... my subclasses may want to override such specific hooks ... Implementation notes iv and their purposes > Hi! > > I am dreaming about a tool to help me document source code. The question I have is what is a well documented class? > What do you think about the following: > > A well documented class is a class: > - that contains a class comment > - its class comments contains either an example, or an associated unit test > - without 'as yet unclassified' method category > - each public method belongs to a method category named public* > - each private method belongs to a method category named private* > - each method contains a comment, located before the declaration of temporary variables > - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' > - without commented code contained in its methods. > > Is there anything else? > > Cheers, > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > |
Re: What is a well documented class?
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi! yes but sometimes the mapping is not "one to one" between classes and methods - without 'as yet unclassified' method category For me no. that's just a convention you may use. I don't put all my public methods in public* - each private method belongs to a method category named private* the same here..sometimes in put them in private* but soemtimes no. - each method contains a comment, located before the declaration of temporary variables It depends if it is worth it or not. Putting a comment that explains exactly the same than the code is not worth it if the method is "self explanatory". Anyway, millions of times you do need to put comments and they help. - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' this sounds too java for me. - without commented code contained in its methods. For me, when dealing with frameworks where there are "base" clases that one can subclass and make its own concrete subclass, it is NEVER documented which methods should I implement. What I mean is that I really like (and I do it) to create a superclass with all the necessary methods as ^ self subclassResponsability (yes, kind of Java interface). cheers mariano Cheers, -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com |
Re: What is a well documented class?
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Stéphane Ducasse
<[hidden email]> wrote: > for the class comment I would have > > intention > I'm doing that > collaborations > with the help of this class and that class > main api > my main public API is ... > > my subclasses may want to override such specific hooks ... Yes, yes! I would like to see those suggestions used by the default comment template for new classes. > Implementation notes > iv and their purposes May I ask, what if we stopped ever mentioning instance vars in the class comment? Perhaps it's a problem of having only one place to document both external and internal details of the class, but it really irks me when the comment template for a newly created class suggests that I divulge the implementation details in what appears to be a document of the interface. Moreover, the comment must change when the implementation changes, even if the interface remains the same. Perhaps that's why so many class comments seem out of sync with the current state of their classes. Thoughts? Mike |
Re: What is a well documented class?
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Alexandre Bergel
<[hidden email]> wrote: [...] > - each public method belongs to a method category named public* > - each private method belongs to a method category named private* Others here may disagree -- and the dreary of legislating and enforcing conventions aside -- but I strive (usually with success) to move all privately-used methods to one or more delegates. One class's private method is just another's public??? > - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' Again, I sympathise with facing the visibility problem, but I don't trust that conventions will be upheld by either end, so I tire of following them. Replace Pharo/Squeak categories with Newspeak modules; replace Pharo/Squeak protocols with traits (stateless, please); I'll be the first in line. My 0.25 :-) Mike |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
> for the class comment I would have
> > intention > I'm doing that > collaborations > with the help of this class and that class > main api > my main public API is ... > > my subclasses may want to override such specific hooks ... > > Implementation notes > iv and their purposes Yes! The collaborations and main api may be automatically inferred (from unit tests?) The public interface can also be inferred. I will work on this. Alexandre > > >> Hi! >> >> I am dreaming about a tool to help me document source code. The question I have is what is a well documented class? >> What do you think about the following: >> >> A well documented class is a class: >> - that contains a class comment >> - its class comments contains either an example, or an associated unit test >> - without 'as yet unclassified' method category >> - each public method belongs to a method category named public* >> - each private method belongs to a method category named private* >> - each method contains a comment, located before the declaration of temporary variables >> - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' >> - without commented code contained in its methods. >> >> Is there anything else? >> >> Cheers, >> Alexandre >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mariano Martinez Peck
> - without 'as yet unclassified' method category
> - each public method belongs to a method category named public* > > For me no. that's just a convention you may use. I don't put all my public methods in public* But if you have a tool that does it automatically for you, will you use it? > - each private method belongs to a method category named private* > > the same here..sometimes in put them in private* but soemtimes no. Ok, but I am not really talking how you should write you code, but how you would like to read code that you haven't written. Will it help to have public* and private* categories? > - each method contains a comment, located before the declaration of temporary variables > > It depends if it is worth it or not. Putting a comment that explains exactly the same than the code is not worth it if the method is "self explanatory". Anyway, millions of times you do need to put comments and they help. I appreciate Lukas' code. It is full of comments. > - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' > > this sounds too java for me. Indeed. > - without commented code contained in its methods. > > Is there anything else? > > > For me, when dealing with frameworks where there are "base" clases that one can subclass and make its own concrete subclass, it is NEVER documented which methods should I implement. What I mean is that I really like (and I do it) to create a superclass with all the necessary methods as ^ self subclassResponsability (yes, kind of Java interface). Yes, the class comment can contains what are the necessary methods to overload. Cheers, Alexandre > > cheers > > mariano > > > Cheers, > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael J. Forster
>> Implementation notes
>> iv and their purposes > > May I ask, what if we stopped ever mentioning instance vars in the > class comment? Perhaps it's a problem of having only one place to > document both external and internal details of the class, but it > really irks me when the comment template for a newly created class > suggests that I divulge the implementation details in what appears to > be a document of the interface. Moreover, the comment must change > when the implementation changes, even if the interface remains the > same. Perhaps that's why so many class comments seem out of sync with > the current state of their classes. Indeed. Synchronizing the documentation and the code is a problem. Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael J. Forster
>> - each public method belongs to a method category named public*
>> - each private method belongs to a method category named private* > > Others here may disagree -- and the dreary of legislating and > enforcing conventions aside -- but I strive (usually with success) to > move all privately-used methods to one or more delegates. One class's > private method is just another's public??? A private method may have to access instances variables. Moving the method to another class may be difficult sometimes. >> - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' > > Again, I sympathise with facing the visibility problem, but I don't > trust that conventions will be upheld by either end, so I tire of > following them. Replace Pharo/Squeak categories with Newspeak > modules; replace Pharo/Squeak protocols with traits (stateless, > please); I'll be the first in line. I do not think this should be enforced. It is easy to infer method visibility with a set of well defined scenarios, for example the one that comes in unit tests. Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. |
Re: What is a well documented class?
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
first let us start changing the default class comment template to have these sections.
Stef On Apr 24, 2011, at 5:57 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >> for the class comment I would have >> >> intention >> I'm doing that >> collaborations >> with the help of this class and that class >> main api >> my main public API is ... >> >> my subclasses may want to override such specific hooks ... >> >> Implementation notes >> iv and their purposes > > Yes! The collaborations and main api may be automatically inferred (from unit tests?) > The public interface can also be inferred. > I will work on this. > > Alexandre > > >> >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> I am dreaming about a tool to help me document source code. The question I have is what is a well documented class? >>> What do you think about the following: >>> >>> A well documented class is a class: >>> - that contains a class comment >>> - its class comments contains either an example, or an associated unit test >>> - without 'as yet unclassified' method category >>> - each public method belongs to a method category named public* >>> - each private method belongs to a method category named private* >>> - each method contains a comment, located before the declaration of temporary variables >>> - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' >>> - without commented code contained in its methods. >>> >>> Is there anything else? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Alexandre >>> -- >>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > |
Re: What is a well documented class?
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
>>>
>> May I ask, what if we stopped ever mentioning instance vars in the >> class comment? Perhaps it's a problem of having only one place to >> document both external and internal details of the class, but it >> really irks me when the comment template for a newly created class >> suggests that I divulge the implementation details in what appears to >> be a document of the interface. Moreover, the comment must change >> when the implementation changes, even if the interface remains the >> same. Perhaps that's why so many class comments seem out of sync with >> the current state of their classes. > > > Indeed. Synchronizing the documentation and the code is a problem. yes but.... let us write more comments. All the rest is arguments not to write them which is far easier as usual. Stef |
Re: What is a well documented class?
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
Alex
give a try and see. I think that this is important. We can even publish something out of it :) Stef On Apr 24, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >>> - each public method belongs to a method category named public* >>> - each private method belongs to a method category named private* >> >> Others here may disagree -- and the dreary of legislating and >> enforcing conventions aside -- but I strive (usually with success) to >> move all privately-used methods to one or more delegates. One class's >> private method is just another's public??? > > A private method may have to access instances variables. Moving the method to another class may be difficult sometimes. > >>> - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' >> >> Again, I sympathise with facing the visibility problem, but I don't >> trust that conventions will be upheld by either end, so I tire of >> following them. Replace Pharo/Squeak categories with Newspeak >> modules; replace Pharo/Squeak protocols with traits (stateless, >> please); I'll be the first in line. > > I do not think this should be enforced. It is easy to infer method visibility with a set of well defined scenarios, for example the one that comes in unit tests. > > Cheers, > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > |
|
|
> give a try and see. I think that this is important.
Yes it is. > We can even publish something out of it :) That's a side effect that cannot be avoided :-) Alexandre > > On Apr 24, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > >>>> - each public method belongs to a method category named public* >>>> - each private method belongs to a method category named private* >>> >>> Others here may disagree -- and the dreary of legislating and >>> enforcing conventions aside -- but I strive (usually with success) to >>> move all privately-used methods to one or more delegates. One class's >>> private method is just another's public??? >> >> A private method may have to access instances variables. Moving the method to another class may be difficult sometimes. >> >>>> - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' >>> >>> Again, I sympathise with facing the visibility problem, but I don't >>> trust that conventions will be upheld by either end, so I tire of >>> following them. Replace Pharo/Squeak categories with Newspeak >>> modules; replace Pharo/Squeak protocols with traits (stateless, >>> please); I'll be the first in line. >> >> I do not think this should be enforced. It is easy to infer method visibility with a set of well defined scenarios, for example the one that comes in unit tests. >> >> Cheers, >> Alexandre >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. |
Re: What is a well documented class?
|
|
On Apr 24, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >> give a try and see. I think that this is important. > > Yes it is. > >> We can even publish something out of it :) > > That's a side effect that cannot be avoided :-) ;-) so even better. > > Alexandre > >> >> On Apr 24, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >> >>>>> - each public method belongs to a method category named public* >>>>> - each private method belongs to a method category named private* >>>> >>>> Others here may disagree -- and the dreary of legislating and >>>> enforcing conventions aside -- but I strive (usually with success) to >>>> move all privately-used methods to one or more delegates. One class's >>>> private method is just another's public??? >>> >>> A private method may have to access instances variables. Moving the method to another class may be difficult sometimes. >>> >>>>> - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' >>>> >>>> Again, I sympathise with facing the visibility problem, but I don't >>>> trust that conventions will be upheld by either end, so I tire of >>>> following them. Replace Pharo/Squeak categories with Newspeak >>>> modules; replace Pharo/Squeak protocols with traits (stateless, >>>> please); I'll be the first in line. >>> >>> I do not think this should be enforced. It is easy to infer method visibility with a set of well defined scenarios, for example the one that comes in unit tests. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Alexandre >>> -- >>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > |
Re: What is a well documented class?
|
|
Public/private categories would a lot of sense if methods could belong to more than one category. Dolphin allows that, and it's *really* nice.
________________________________________ From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 12:37 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What is a well documented class? On Apr 24, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >> give a try and see. I think that this is important. > > Yes it is. > >> We can even publish something out of it :) > > That's a side effect that cannot be avoided :-) ;-) so even better. > > Alexandre > >> >> On Apr 24, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >> >>>>> - each public method belongs to a method category named public* >>>>> - each private method belongs to a method category named private* >>>> >>>> Others here may disagree -- and the dreary of legislating and >>>> enforcing conventions aside -- but I strive (usually with success) to >>>> move all privately-used methods to one or more delegates. One class's >>>> private method is just another's public??? >>> >>> A private method may have to access instances variables. Moving the method to another class may be difficult sometimes. >>> >>>>> - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' >>>> >>>> Again, I sympathise with facing the visibility problem, but I don't >>>> trust that conventions will be upheld by either end, so I tire of >>>> following them. Replace Pharo/Squeak categories with Newspeak >>>> modules; replace Pharo/Squeak protocols with traits (stateless, >>>> please); I'll be the first in line. >>> >>> I do not think this should be enforced. It is easy to infer method visibility with a set of well defined scenarios, for example the one that comes in unit tests. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Alexandre >>> -- >>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > |
Re: What is a well documented class?
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Alexandre Bergel
<[hidden email]> wrote: >>> - each public method belongs to a method category named public* >>> - each private method belongs to a method category named private* >> >> Others here may disagree -- and the dreary of legislating and >> enforcing conventions aside -- but I strive (usually with success) to >> move all privately-used methods to one or more delegates. One class's >> private method is just another's public??? > > A private method may have to access instances variables. Moving the method to another class may be difficult sometimes. All the more reason to move it! A private method accessing instance variables is just global-variable-oriented spaghetti programming disguised by a class. Such a method is just begging to be moved to a delegate and to accept the instance var values as arguments. >>> - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' >> >> Again, I sympathise with facing the visibility problem, but I don't >> trust that conventions will be upheld by either end, so I tire of >> following them. Replace Pharo/Squeak categories with Newspeak >> modules; replace Pharo/Squeak protocols with traits (stateless, >> please); I'll be the first in line. > > I do not think this should be enforced. It is easy to infer method visibility with a set of well defined scenarios, for example the one that comes in unit tests. You can't infer reliably from such shaky premises, whether they are manifest as conventions or unit tests. Cheers, Mike |
|
|
In reply to this post by Schwab,Wilhelm K
So, instead of having public/private category, a comment can be "public method" or "private method".
I will work on a documentation tool very soon. Cheers, Alexandre On 24 Apr 2011, at 12:45, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote: > Public/private categories would a lot of sense if methods could belong to more than one category. Dolphin allows that, and it's *really* nice. > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]] > Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 12:37 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What is a well documented class? > > On Apr 24, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > >>> give a try and see. I think that this is important. >> >> Yes it is. >> >>> We can even publish something out of it :) >> >> That's a side effect that cannot be avoided :-) > > ;-) > so even better. > > >> >> Alexandre >> >>> >>> On Apr 24, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >>> >>>>>> - each public method belongs to a method category named public* >>>>>> - each private method belongs to a method category named private* >>>>> >>>>> Others here may disagree -- and the dreary of legislating and >>>>> enforcing conventions aside -- but I strive (usually with success) to >>>>> move all privately-used methods to one or more delegates. One class's >>>>> private method is just another's public??? >>>> >>>> A private method may have to access instances variables. Moving the method to another class may be difficult sometimes. >>>> >>>>>> - other methods are considered as "package visible", meaning that they belong to a category that does not begins with 'private' or 'public' >>>>> >>>>> Again, I sympathise with facing the visibility problem, but I don't >>>>> trust that conventions will be upheld by either end, so I tire of >>>>> following them. Replace Pharo/Squeak categories with Newspeak >>>>> modules; replace Pharo/Squeak protocols with traits (stateless, >>>>> please); I'll be the first in line. >>>> >>>> I do not think this should be enforced. It is easy to infer method visibility with a set of well defined scenarios, for example the one that comes in unit tests. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Alexandre >>>> -- >>>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >>>> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >>>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. |
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
I think a well documented class is a class which can be understood by reading its documentation without having to resort to anything else, be it running the test only to see something not obvious, reading the code to understand the working which the document fell short; and without having to assemble a mini encyclopedia of references in order to grasp the contents of the documentation.
my 0.019999 -- Cesar Rabak |
|
|
Ok, but what would be a tool that help you write comment? This cannot be the system browser.
Alexandre On 25 Apr 2011, at 12:37, [hidden email] wrote: > I think a well documented class is a class which can be understood by reading its documentation without having to resort to anything else, be it running the test only to see something not obvious, reading the code to understand the working which the document fell short; and without having to assemble a mini encyclopedia of references in order to grasp the contents of the documentation. > > my 0.019999 > > -- > Cesar Rabak > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. |
|
|
The tool is a text editor ;-)
If we agree on my suggestions, we can compose a set of guidelines to arrive at deliverables that comply with them. One tool could be a template and a checklist to help the writer of the documentation. -- Cesar Rabak Em 25/04/2011 14:59, Alexandre Bergel < [hidden email] > escreveu: Ok, but what would be a tool that help you write comment? This cannot be the system browser. Alexandre On 25 Apr 2011, at 12:37, [hidden email] wrote: > I think a well documented class is a class which can be understood by reading its documentation without having to resort to anything else, be it running the test only to see something not obvious, reading the code to understand the working which the document fell short; and without having to assemble a mini encyclopedia of references in order to grasp the contents of the documentation. > > my 0.019999 > > -- > Cesar Rabak > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |