I haven't yet got round to upgrading to 0.83 and the upgraded xodoc tool, but I'd like to know how it reacts to splitting up a package into several files? Ie. I have one large file with lots of classes but to structure it more neatly I am moving parts of it into other files with the same package name so that "package require" gets all of them. Will this affect the operation of xodoc? Specifically I'd like to know what happens when using the "@ File" system as I'd probably like to document each file separately like that.
In addition all the classes in the different files are evaled into the same namespace, so xodoc should handle this too.
On another issue we have made Debian packages of XOTcl (0.82, but 0.83 is on the way) if someone is interested.. They're not extensively tested but they seem to work on the machines here. Probably candidates for merging into the official Debian system at some later time.
- ---------- = = ---------//--+ | / Kristoffer Lawson | www.fishpool.fi|.com +-> | setok@fishpool.com | - - --+------ |-- Fishpool Creations Ltd - / | +-------- = - - - = --------- /~setok/
"KL" == Kristoffer Lawson setok@fishpool.com writes:
KL> I haven't yet got round to upgrading to 0.83 and the upgraded xodoc tool, KL> but I'd like to know how it reacts to splitting up a package into several KL> files? Ie. I have one large file with lots of classes but to structure KL> it more neatly I am moving parts of it into other files with the same KL> package name so that "package require" gets all of them. Will this affect KL> the operation of xodoc? Specifically I'd like to know what happens KL> when using the "@ File" system as I'd probably like to document each KL> file separately like that.
xodoc works at the moment per file. I.e. when documenting several files with the same package provides/requires it will produce a html doc file for each (in this file the "@ File" is evaluated). But is this the behavior you intend?
we could also merge components that are split across files into one documentation file. I'm not sure which solution is the best one ... what do you think?
KL> In addition all the classes in the different files are evaled into the KL> same namespace, so xodoc should handle this too.
I think this works ... but only with several doc files.
KL> On another issue we have made Debian packages of XOTcl (0.82, but 0.83 is KL> on the way) if someone is interested.. They're not extensively tested but KL> they seem to work on the machines here. Probably candidates for merging KL> into the official Debian system at some later time.
great! if you like to maintain Debian packages & have a web page for them, we can link this page with the XOTcl download page?
--Uwe
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 uwe.zdun@uni-essen.de wrote:
we could also merge components that are split across files into one documentation file. I'm not sure which solution is the best one ... what do you think?
I think the best behaviour would be a combination of the two given possibilities:
Each code file does get its own documentation file, but there is one package documentation file that lists which files are part of the packages. This document file would then link to the per-file document files.
KL> On another issue we have made Debian packages of XOTcl (0.82, but 0.83 is KL> on the way) if someone is interested.. They're not extensively tested but KL> they seem to work on the machines here. Probably candidates for merging KL> into the official Debian system at some later time.
great! if you like to maintain Debian packages & have a web page for them, we can link this page with the XOTcl download page?
Yeah, we should still test them on a clean machine and if that works then we can stick them up somewhere. I'll get back to you once we've done that. There shouldn't be any major problems anyway. I just did a "dpkg -i" for the 0.83 package and except for a minor issue with pkgIndex.tcl it seems to be working.
- ---------- = = ---------//--+ | / Kristoffer Lawson | www.fishpool.fi|.com +-> | setok@fishpool.com | - - --+------ |-- Fishpool Creations Ltd - / | +-------- = - - - = --------- /~setok/
"KL" == Kristoffer Lawson setok@fishpool.com writes:
KL> On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 uwe.zdun@uni-essen.de wrote:
we could also merge components that are split across files into one documentation file. I'm not sure which solution is the best one ... what do you think?
KL> I think the best behaviour would be a combination of the two given KL> possibilities:
KL> Each code file does get its own documentation file, but there is one KL> package documentation file that lists which files are part of the KL> packages. This document file would then link to the per-file document KL> files.
yeah, that sounds sensible. I take a look at how we can realize this behavior conveniently ...
KL> On another issue we have made Debian packages of XOTcl (0.82, but 0.83 is KL> on the way) if someone is interested.. They're not extensively tested but KL> they seem to work on the machines here. Probably candidates for merging KL> into the official Debian system at some later time.
great! if you like to maintain Debian packages & have a web page for them, we can link this page with the XOTcl download page?
KL> Yeah, we should still test them on a clean machine and if that works KL> then we can stick them up somewhere. I'll get back to you once we've KL> done that. There shouldn't be any major problems anyway. I just KL> did a "dpkg -i" for the 0.83 package and except for a minor issue with KL> pkgIndex.tcl it seems to be working.
ok. just drop us a note, when you're through with it
--Uwe
-
Kristoffer Lawson -
uwe.zdun＠uni-essen.de