This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: "Documentation by paper"
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 04 11:18:31 EST
- Subject: Re: "Documentation by paper"
You can leave out an explanation of what a dominator is and still
be self-contained.
Not in the sense that it has been in the past.
What's next, do we have to explain what a finite automaton is in the
sources of GCC?
It's always hard to know where to draw the line, but it would seem to me that
in any case where you have a finite automaton, the description of the
automaton itself would almost serve as a definition-by-example of the term.
As an example of the sort of thing I'd expect to see, look at the Bison
manual. Not only does it not simply leave "LALR(1)" to be looked up (and
that's a much more well known term than those previously mentioned), it even
defines "context-free grammar" and "symbol".
I think that manual sets a good standard for GCC documentation and we should
do at least as much as it does.