The wiki is good and all but its not very official.   I think it would be a good idea to have one wiki page for every page in the D manual.  Then at the end of every page on the D website have a link to that wiki page with something like "Want to know more".  That way users could comment + provide examples on every D page.

What do you think?
Walter?

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

In article <capjgt$30uc$1@digitaldaemon.com>, J Anderson says...
>
>The wiki is good and all but its not very official.   I think it would be a good idea to have one wiki page for every page in the D manual. Then at the end of every page on the D website have a link to that wiki page with something like "Want to know more".  That way users could comment + provide examples on every D page.
>
>What do you think?
>Walter?
>
>-- 
>-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

You mean, kind of like the user-comments in the online PHP manual? (http://www.php.net)  I think the wiki was already headed in that direction for 'unofficial' documentation/tips/whatever but you're right: why not add the whole 'official' manual while we're at it.

You got my vote. :)

- Eric

In article <capmmb$44s$1@digitaldaemon.com>, EricAnderton at yahoo dot com says...
>
>In article <capjgt$30uc$1@digitaldaemon.com>, J Anderson says...
>>
>>The wiki is good and all but its not very official.   I think it would be a good idea to have one wiki page for every page in the D manual. Then at the end of every page on the D website have a link to that wiki page with something like "Want to know more".  That way users could comment + provide examples on every D page.
>>
>>What do you think?
>>Walter?
>>
>>-- 
>>-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
>
>You mean, kind of like the user-comments in the online PHP manual? (http://www.php.net)  I think the wiki was already headed in that direction for 'unofficial' documentation/tips/whatever but you're right: why not add the whole 'official' manual while we're at it.
>
>You got my vote. :)
>
>- Eric

. And with the understanding that whatever is posted is fair game when Walter or others republish the manual.  Just to nip that issue in the bud.

Kevin

Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add the links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.

"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson@badmama.com.au> wrote in message news:capjgt$30uc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> The wiki is good and all but its not very official.   I think it would be a good idea to have one wiki page for every page in the D manual. Then at the end of every page on the D website have a link to that wiki page with something like "Want to know more".  That way users could comment + provide examples on every D page.
>
> What do you think?
> Walter?
>
> -- 
> -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

Walter wrote:

>Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add the
>links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.
>  
>
Ok, you can find all the pages at:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Digital_Mars_Comment

However please use the direct links as nobody likes going though multiple pages to get somewhere.

>"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson@badmama.com.au> wrote in message
>news:capjgt$30uc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>  
>
>>The wiki is good and all but its not very official.   I think it would
>>be a good idea to have one wiki page for every page in the D manual.
>>Then at the end of every page on the D website have a link to that wiki
>>page with something like "Want to know more".  That way users could
>>comment + provide examples on every D page.
>>
>>What do you think?
>>Walter?
>>
>>-- 
>>-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

J Anderson wrote:
> Walter wrote:
> 
>> Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add the
>> links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.
>>  
>>
> Ok, you can find all the pages at:
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Digital_Mars_Comment
> 
> However please use the direct links as nobody likes going though multiple pages to get somewhere.

Joel and everyone,

I have some suggestions.

I'm not sure why you've added the new sections rather than adding to the existing DocumenationAmendments section (I think Helmut added it for this purpose). Instead of having two competing wiki sections
(DocumentationAmendments and Digital_Mars_Comment) perhaps we should just have one. If DocumentationAmendments is too verbose, we can delete that and recreate it as DocComments or DocumentComments.

Also, instead of having separate pages, we could have subpages:
DocComments/Arrays
DocComments/Phobos

I think it'd be helpful if the wiki page corresponded with the HTML filename (the filenames are shorter and probably less likely to change):

abi.html    -> DocComments/ABI     "Application Binary Interface"
intro.html  -> DocComments/Intro   "Introduction"
phobos.html -> DocComments/Phobos  "Phobos (Runtime Library)"

These are just ideas. I know you've put some time into the way you've set it up, but I'm not sure how easy to maintain it would be with the current convention.

What do you guys think? I don't mind setting it up according to my convention if people like it.

> 
>> "J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson@badmama.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:capjgt$30uc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>  
>>
>>> The wiki is good and all but its not very official.   I think it would
>>> be a good idea to have one wiki page for every page in the D manual.
>>> Then at the end of every page on the D website have a link to that wiki
>>> page with something like "Want to know more".  That way users could
>>> comment + provide examples on every D page.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>> Walter?
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

In article <car095$25m4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...

>abi.html    -> DocComments/ABI     "Application Binary Interface"
>intro.html  -> DocComments/Intro   "Introduction"
>phobos.html -> DocComments/Phobos  "Phobos (Runtime Library)"
>
>These are just ideas. I know you've put some time into the way you've set it up, but I'm not sure how easy to maintain it would be with the current convention.
>
>What do you guys think? I don't mind setting it up according to my convention if people like it.

One thought - phobos.html is an extremely big file. I would prefer that, if not it, then at least the user comments, be split into one per Phobos package. (In fact, if necessary, one per function, like PHP does).

It would be nice to doxygenate the Phobos functions - but I suspect you need the source code for that. (I could be wrong. If it's possible to doxygenate using just import stubs then someone with a kind heart and lots of spare time* might like to start on that)

Jill


*assuming such a creature exists

J C Calvarese wrote:

> J Anderson wrote:
>
>> Walter wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add the
>>> links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.
>>>  
>>>
>> Ok, you can find all the pages at:
>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Digital_Mars_Comment
>>
>> However please use the direct links as nobody likes going though multiple pages to get somewhere.
>
>
> Joel and everyone,
>
> I have some suggestions.
>
> I'm not sure why you've added the new sections rather than adding to the existing DocumenationAmendments section (I think Helmut added it for this purpose). Instead of having two competing wiki sections
> (DocumentationAmendments and Digital_Mars_Comment) perhaps we should just have one. If DocumentationAmendments is too verbose, we can delete that and recreate it as DocComments or DocumentComments.
>
> Also, instead of having separate pages, we could have subpages:
> DocComments/Arrays
> DocComments/Phobos
>
> I think it'd be helpful if the wiki page corresponded with the HTML filename (the filenames are shorter and probably less likely to change):
>
> abi.html    -> DocComments/ABI     "Application Binary Interface"
> intro.html  -> DocComments/Intro   "Introduction"
> phobos.html -> DocComments/Phobos  "Phobos (Runtime Library)"
>
> These are just ideas. I know you've put some time into the way you've set it up, but I'm not sure how easy to maintain it would be with the current convention.
>
> What do you guys think? I don't mind setting it up according to my convention if people like it.
>
Whatever, sounds good.  I'm going to live in Melbourne in 2 days and won't probably be able to get online very soon.  So you'll need to do that yourself.  I look forward to see how it progresses in two weeks.

cya.


-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson@badmama.com.au> wrote in message news:caqs55$2060$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
>
> >Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add the links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.
> >
> >
> Ok, you can find all the pages at: http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Digital_Mars_Comment
>
> However please use the direct links as nobody likes going though multiple pages to get somewhere.

Thanks. So far, I've done it with the first 3 pages and the faq.

In article <case03$18us$2@digitaldaemon.com>, J Anderson says...
>
>J C Calvarese wrote:
>
>> J Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> Walter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add the
>>>> links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.
>>>> 
>>>>
>>> Ok, you can find all the pages at: http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Digital_Mars_Comment
>>>
>>> However please use the direct links as nobody likes going though multiple pages to get somewhere.
>>
>>
>> Joel and everyone,
>>
>> I have some suggestions.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you've added the new sections rather than adding to the existing DocumenationAmendments section (I think Helmut added it for this purpose). Instead of having two competing wiki sections (DocumentationAmendments and Digital_Mars_Comment) perhaps we should just have one. If DocumentationAmendments is too verbose, we can delete that and recreate it as DocComments or DocumentComments.
>>
>> Also, instead of having separate pages, we could have subpages:
>> DocComments/Arrays
>> DocComments/Phobos
>>
>> I think it'd be helpful if the wiki page corresponded with the HTML filename (the filenames are shorter and probably less likely to change):
>>
>> abi.html    -> DocComments/ABI     "Application Binary Interface"
>> intro.html  -> DocComments/Intro   "Introduction"
>> phobos.html -> DocComments/Phobos  "Phobos (Runtime Library)"
>>
>> These are just ideas. I know you've put some time into the way you've set it up, but I'm not sure how easy to maintain it would be with the current convention.
>>
>> What do you guys think? I don't mind setting it up according to my convention if people like it.
>>
>Whatever, sounds good.  I'm going to live in Melbourne in 2 days and won't probably be able to get online very soon.  So you'll need to do that yourself.  I look forward to see how it progresses in two weeks.
>
>cya.
>
>
>-- 
>-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/


Have fun in Melbourne.

Since no one has objected yet, I've started setting it all up like I suggested. I expect finish it off tonight after I get home from work.

Here's where I'm working on it (I've already added from Intro to Arrays): http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocComments

And in response to Arcane Jill:
"One thought - phobos.html is an extremely big file. I would prefer that, if not
it, then at least the user comments, be split into one per Phobos package. (In
fact, if necessary, one per function, like PHP does)."

Certainly that will be necessary eventually, but it might be a little premature to set up all of the sub-subpages right now. Here's what it looks like with a sub-subpage: http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocComments/Phobos

Justin (jcc7)