[Lazarus] Lazarus documentation

[Mattias Gaertner]

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:36:40 +0100
Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1 at aol.com> wrote:

> Since my last experiments with the Lazarus documentation I have a big 
> wishlist.
> 
> 1) Updates
> I've applied many updates to the LCL documentation, mainly with regards 
> to docking. It would be nice to have SVN write access to the docs 
> folder, because I'm pretty sure that nobody can/will check documentation 
> patches before checking them in.

You can send to me.

 
> 2) Structure
> IMO all documentation should reside in $Lazarus/docs/, regardless of 
> packages. I.e. when I want to document the IDE and related packages, the 
> files should go to an docs/xml/ide/ folder. Paul instead argues that the 
> documentation should stay together with the (package) sources - but this 
> might cause problems in finding documentation at all, fpdoc path 
> maintenance etc.

The opposite.
fpdoc paths are automatically maintained with the packages. If you put
them somewhere else the maintenance will cost more.
The search is done by the chmviewer or eventually directly in the xml
files.

 
> Eventually all documentation (about packages, tools etc.) can be stored 
> in independent SVN projects, which are added to /docs/xml/ as subprojects.

?

 
> 3) Packages
> We should have at least documentation skeletons for all packages, so 
> that everybody can see what's missing. I'm willing to create the 
> skeletons, when their integration into LazDE is established (see below).
> 
> Can somebody try to create a documentation skeleton for any package, 
> based on e.g. an .lpk file, that can be opened for further edits in 
> LazDE? I found no way to do so yet :-(

What do you mean?

 
> 4) LazDE
> LazDE has a nice GUI for adding bulk documentation, or for filling the 
> gaps left by the FPDoc editor. Unfortunately I achieved, somehow, that 
> LazDE cannot open any package documentation any more, and also not the 
> new documentation created with FPDoc Updater. At least should it be 
> possible to add existing XML files to a package, as long as LazDE cannot 
> create documentation for packages and all contained files itself.

Please create a bug report.

 
> 5) FPDoc
> The FPDoc editor is nice for adding help on the fly, but not easily 
> usable for reviews. Switching amongst the tabs is nasty, I'd appreciate 
> an option to expand the tabbed view into something like the LazDE GUI, 
> where short and long descriptions can be seen at the same time.
> 
> It would be nice to have kind of an import feature in LazDE, so that
> 
> 6) FPDoc Updater
> I've added some remarks to the wiki. Main question: how to create a 
> documentation package, compatible with LazDE?
> 
> 7) 64 bit
> Dunno remember where, but at least on documentation tool deserves fixes 
> for 64 bit (cast between LongInt and TObject reference)
> 
> 
> All in all I feel a need for better integration of the various 
> documentation tools. Who ever will try to create documentation for a new 
> package or project will see the many problems...

I guess Michael welcomes patches for LazDE.

Mattias