[Lazarus] Documentation contribution

[Martin]

On 11/02/2012 17:21, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
> Martin schrieb:
> > However, if the person, who founds it has the ability to add a note, 
> then he can also immediately correct it. Knowing it is misleading, 
> does imply knowing what it was meant to say. So rewording the existing 
> content should be possible.
>
> In general this is not correct. If I see that variables mentioned in 
> the documentation do not exist in the source I don't know 
> automatically which variables to replace them with (if any). Or when I 
> tested things and find that it does not behave as mentioned in the 
> documentation I also don't know how it's meant to work.

And a comment/note like "[What]" or "[Really]" Does improve that?

If anything more meaningful can be put into a note, then the person can 
also write it proper into the doc.

If your tests shows that it is incorrect. Well incorrect => delete.

What good is "foo does blah blah [this is wrong]" over an empty entry? 
Anyone who needs the old/outdated/wrong text, still finds it in SVN


>
>
> > If he person is not sure, about it being misleading or not, but 
> believes it might be. Then better ask first before  adding a note
>
> You know that this is impractical if you need to wait for an answer 
> each time you stumble over errors. What happens if no one has an 
> answer (within a given time)?

I do the same from time to the, if I try to implement something, and 
don't understand something I need for it. Or don't know something else.

If no one answers:
Well what good is a note then, if it is meant to indicate some one needs 
to fix it. No one ever will (or they would have answered)