[Lazarus] Help on FCL?

[Mattias Gaertner]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 21:40:37 +0100
Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1 at aol.com> wrote:

> Mattias Gaertner schrieb:
> 
> >> The project files have been introduced in fpdoc 2.7, to simplify 
> >> building the docs. Using them will also eliminate the need for 
> >> build_lcl_docs or similar scripts, when only the equivalent fpdoc 
> >> project is supplied. The FPDocManager (in examples) can create fpdoc 
> >> projects from/for existing Lazarus packages or projects.
> > 
> > I will take a look. It needs dGlobals.
> > Please add an error directive when compiling with less than 2.7.1.
> 
> I don't remember how to check the FPC version - can you give me a source 
> snippet?

{$IF FPC_FULLVERSION<20701}{$ERROR ...}{$ENDIF}

 
> >> A user will *not* be confused much, when all Lazarus supplied units are 
> >> documented in 'LCL' (e.g. lcl.chm), regardless of Lazarus-added 
> >> arbitrary subdivisions. He also will not be confused when FPDoc Editor 
> >> simply can put a description into wherever it is expected by the help 
> >> system.
> > 
> > It seems I don't get it. 
> > I think it is confusing if the docs shows the wrong package. The unit
> > fileutil is in LazUtils, so the docs should show LazUtils, not LCL.
> 
> Why should a user care about the Lazarus package name? When Controls.pp 
> is in LCLBase, should it show up only in LCLBase.chm, instead of lcl.chm 
> (as is)?

Where? In lhelp?

 
>[...]
> >> That's why I suggest a single (fpdoc) package 'LCL', instead of 
> >> cluttering the docs and indices(!) into LCL, LCLBase, LazUtils etc. IMO 
> >> a user will be confused when he *thinks* that he is using the LCL, but 
> >> has to search for help on it in LCLBase.chm, where up to the last 
> >> release *everything* LCL-related was documented in LCL.chm.
> > 
> > Ehm, the LCL is only one part of Lazarus. There are more packages
> > with fpdoc files in the Lazarus sources. The help will eventually
> > contain all of them. 
> 
> One more reason to use an single documentation package name throughout 
> all LCL supplied packages.

?

 
>[...]
> >> All I wanted to point out are *Lazarus generated* problems, not problems 
> >> of fpdoc.
> >>
> >>
> >>> The fcl.lpk package does not need fpdoc help.
> >> That's why I wonder why it is *named* 'fcl', when this name already is 
> >> in use for the FPC FCL. Rename it into LazFCL, and everything is fine again.
> > 
> > It was named FCL, because the FCL needed a package to register its
> > components in the IDE.
> > Renaming would break many projects and packages.
> 
> Some foresight had prevented the current mess :-(

What mess?
There is no other fcl.lpk, so there is no name clash.

Mattias