View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
March 09, 2011
Library Documentation
I've started to push more of my smaller work projects through D now, which
means I had to dive a lot through the standard library source files, something
I've previously complained about.


As a result of (my) complaining and being a huge fan of XMind, I decided to
try to organize the library for my own references as I encounter new sections
of it.  I have a decent portion of it in place now.  I thought I'd post a link
in case it can help anyone else out as well.


http://polish.slavic.pitt.edu/~swan/theta/Phobos.xmind
March 10, 2011
Re: Library Documentation
Nicholas Wrote:

> As a result of (my) complaining and being a huge fan of XMind, I decided to
> try to organize the library for my own references as I encounter new sections
> of it.  I have a decent portion of it in place now.  I thought I'd post a link
> in case it can help anyone else out as well.
> 
> 
> http://polish.slavic.pitt.edu/~swan/theta/Phobos.xmind

may be you could expose/share your work via service like 

http://www.xmind.net/share/

because not everybody have installed xmind...
March 11, 2011
Re: Library Documentation
== Quote from novice2 (sorry@noem.ail)'s article
> Nicholas Wrote:
> > As a result of (my) complaining and being a huge fan of XMind, I decided to
> > try to organize the library for my own references as I encounter new sections
> > of it.  I have a decent portion of it in place now.  I thought I'd post a link
> > in case it can help anyone else out as well.
> >
> >
> > http://polish.slavic.pitt.edu/~swan/theta/Phobos.xmind
> may be you could expose/share your work via service like
> http://www.xmind.net/share/
> because not everybody have installed xmind...

Good point.  I'll do that on Monday when I'm back at the office.  I updated
std.datetime to 2.052 yesterday (didn't realize there was a new version until then).
March 11, 2011
Re: Library Documentation
On Friday, March 11, 2011 12:08:19 Nicholas wrote:
> == Quote from novice2 (sorry@noem.ail)'s article
> 
> > Nicholas Wrote:
> > > As a result of (my) complaining and being a huge fan of XMind, I
> > > decided to try to organize the library for my own references as I
> > > encounter new sections of it.  I have a decent portion of it in place
> > > now.  I thought I'd post a link in case it can help anyone else out as
> > > well.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > http://polish.slavic.pitt.edu/~swan/theta/Phobos.xmind
> > 
> > may be you could expose/share your work via service like
> > http://www.xmind.net/share/
> > because not everybody have installed xmind...
> 
> Good point.  I'll do that on Monday when I'm back at the office.  I updated
> std.datetime to 2.052 yesterday (didn't realize there was a new version
> until then).

LOL. Yeah. It's practically not even related to the previous version. The few 
items that it had were moved to core.time and left in std.datetime, but it's 
very small in comparison to what was added. What's there _is_ thoroughly 
documented though. So, depending on what your problem is with Phobos' 
documentation is (I don't know what your problem with it is), maybe you'll like 
that better. If your problem with the documentation has to do with the fact that 
the links on the top aren't organized (which they obviously need to be), then 
that problem still needs to be dealt with. There has been _some_ work in that 
direction though. Andrei has been working to improve how std.algorithm's links 
are laid out, and there has been a person or two who have been working on ways 
to improve the way all that is laid out in general, but it hasn't yet reached 
the point that Phobos' basic documentation layout has been truly fixed.

Still, it's good to have as much documentation as we do, even if it could use 
some improvements as far as layout goes.

- Jonathan M Davis
March 12, 2011
Re: Library Documentation
== Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisProg@gmx.com)'s article
> On Friday, March 11, 2011 12:08:19 Nicholas wrote:
> > == Quote from novice2 (sorry@noem.ail)'s article
> >
> > > Nicholas Wrote:
> > > > As a result of (my) complaining and being a huge fan of XMind, I
> > > > decided to try to organize the library for my own references as I
> > > > encounter new sections of it.  I have a decent portion of it in place
> > > > now.  I thought I'd post a link in case it can help anyone else out as
> > > > well.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://polish.slavic.pitt.edu/~swan/theta/Phobos.xmind
> > >
> > > may be you could expose/share your work via service like
> > > http://www.xmind.net/share/
> > > because not everybody have installed xmind...
> >
> > Good point.  I'll do that on Monday when I'm back at the office.  I updated
> > std.datetime to 2.052 yesterday (didn't realize there was a new version
> > until then).
> LOL. Yeah. It's practically not even related to the previous version. The few
> items that it had were moved to core.time and left in std.datetime, but it's
> very small in comparison to what was added. What's there _is_ thoroughly
> documented though. So, depending on what your problem is with Phobos'
> documentation is (I don't know what your problem with it is), maybe you'll like
> that better. If your problem with the documentation has to do with the fact that
> the links on the top aren't organized (which they obviously need to be), then
> that problem still needs to be dealt with. There has been _some_ work in that
> direction though. Andrei has been working to improve how std.algorithm's links
> are laid out, and there has been a person or two who have been working on ways
> to improve the way all that is laid out in general, but it hasn't yet reached
> the point that Phobos' basic documentation layout has been truly fixed.
> Still, it's good to have as much documentation as we do, even if it could use
> some improvements as far as layout goes.
> - Jonathan M Davis

Yeah, it was amazing when I opened up the new datetime source file.  The previous
one just had Ticks and StopWatch along with 3 public functions outside of those.
It took me a while to go through the new one.


My problem with the documentation isn't that it lacks information.  Most of the
developers have done an excellent job in that regards.  The problem is the layout.
It takes as much time to find the information on the webpage as it does to just
search through the source code.  And both can be fairly crazy to look through.  I
believe that if you have to hit ctrl-f to find what you need then there's a
fundamental flaw with the layout.


Not everyone thinks alike, though.  I just wanted to offer an alternative.  Since
no IDEs offer intellisense (VisualD's is rudimentary but improving) there's a
severe need for quick referencing.  I was hoping to achieve that with XMind.
March 12, 2011
Re: Library Documentation
On Friday, March 11, 2011 19:31:51 Nicholas wrote:
> == Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisProg@gmx.com)'s article
> 
> > On Friday, March 11, 2011 12:08:19 Nicholas wrote:
> > > == Quote from novice2 (sorry@noem.ail)'s article
> > > 
> > > > Nicholas Wrote:
> > > > > As a result of (my) complaining and being a huge fan of XMind, I
> > > > > decided to try to organize the library for my own references as I
> > > > > encounter new sections of it.  I have a decent portion of it in
> > > > > place now.  I thought I'd post a link in case it can help anyone
> > > > > else out as well.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://polish.slavic.pitt.edu/~swan/theta/Phobos.xmind
> > > > 
> > > > may be you could expose/share your work via service like
> > > > http://www.xmind.net/share/
> > > > because not everybody have installed xmind...
> > > 
> > > Good point.  I'll do that on Monday when I'm back at the office.  I
> > > updated std.datetime to 2.052 yesterday (didn't realize there was a
> > > new version until then).
> > 
> > LOL. Yeah. It's practically not even related to the previous version. The
> > few items that it had were moved to core.time and left in std.datetime,
> > but it's very small in comparison to what was added. What's there _is_
> > thoroughly documented though. So, depending on what your problem is with
> > Phobos' documentation is (I don't know what your problem with it is),
> > maybe you'll like that better. If your problem with the documentation
> > has to do with the fact that the links on the top aren't organized
> > (which they obviously need to be), then that problem still needs to be
> > dealt with. There has been _some_ work in that direction though. Andrei
> > has been working to improve how std.algorithm's links are laid out, and
> > there has been a person or two who have been working on ways to improve
> > the way all that is laid out in general, but it hasn't yet reached the
> > point that Phobos' basic documentation layout has been truly fixed.
> > Still, it's good to have as much documentation as we do, even if it
> > could use some improvements as far as layout goes.
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> Yeah, it was amazing when I opened up the new datetime source file.  The
> previous one just had Ticks and StopWatch along with 3 public functions
> outside of those. It took me a while to go through the new one.
> 
> 
> My problem with the documentation isn't that it lacks information.  Most of
> the developers have done an excellent job in that regards.  The problem is
> the layout. It takes as much time to find the information on the webpage
> as it does to just search through the source code.  And both can be fairly
> crazy to look through.  I believe that if you have to hit ctrl-f to find
> what you need then there's a fundamental flaw with the layout.

Well, I don't think that the documentation layout needs improvement, but work on 
that has been a low enough priority that progress has been slow.

> Not everyone thinks alike, though.  I just wanted to offer an alternative. 
> Since no IDEs offer intellisense (VisualD's is rudimentary but improving)
> there's a severe need for quick referencing.  I was hoping to achieve that
> with XMind.

Well, I'd never heard of XMind before you mentioned it, so I have no idea what 
it offers, but if it can give a better version of the documentation, then it may 
be worth looking at.

- Jonathan M Davis
March 12, 2011
Re: Library Documentation
El 12/03/2011 00:31, Nicholas escribió:
> My problem with the documentation isn't that it lacks information.  Most of the
> developers have done an excellent job in that regards.  The problem is the layout.
>   It takes as much time to find the information on the webpage as it does to just
> search through the source code.  And both can be fairly crazy to look through.  I
> believe that if you have to hit ctrl-f to find what you need then there's a
> fundamental flaw with the layout.

Wow, I had the same complain a while ago. I totally agree with you in 
this regard. Something is wrong with the documentation if it's hard to 
find things in it.

Tom;
March 14, 2011
Re: Library Documentation
== Quote from Nicholas (maybe@later.com)'s article
> == Quote from novice2 (sorry@noem.ail)'s article
> > Nicholas Wrote:
> > > As a result of (my) complaining and being a huge fan of XMind, I decided to
> > > try to organize the library for my own references as I encounter new sections
> > > of it.  I have a decent portion of it in place now.  I thought I'd post a link
> > > in case it can help anyone else out as well.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://polish.slavic.pitt.edu/~swan/theta/Phobos.xmind
> > may be you could expose/share your work via service like
> > http://www.xmind.net/share/
> > because not everybody have installed xmind...
> Good point.  I'll do that on Monday when I'm back at the office.  I updated
> std.datetime to 2.052 yesterday (didn't realize there was a new version until then).


It's now posted on http://www.xmind.net/share/nicholasr/d/ where you can download
the file.  I didn't see an online version.  I converted it to FreeMind to export
to java so that it can be in an online format but it messed up part of it.  I'll
have to play with it more.  Until then you'll have to use XMind, which is free at
least.


If you see where any improvements can be made then let me know.
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home