[fortran, docs] Add embryonic gfc-internals.texi manual.
Sun Mar 25 22:53:00 GMT 2007
Brooks Moses wrote:
> Toon Moene wrote:
>> Tobias SchlÃ¼ter wrote:
>>> How about putting this into the wiki? I don't think it makes much
>>> sense to distribute this documentation to the user, nor does it make
>>> much sense to have different versions for different future versions /
>>> branches. Also the entry barrier with .texi is higher (well, IMO).
> One of the reasons that I was wanting to do this as a .texi document is
> that for me personally the entry barrier is lower -- especially when I'm
> working without a net connection, which is often the case. Having a
> scratch copy in which I can write guesses that might be entirely wrong
> and then edit and correct before pushing them "live" works better for
> me. But that's all personal preference, and I know it's not universal.
> Another advantange of putting this in SVN in some form is that
> (regardless of how the approval is done) it goes through the usual patch
> submission process, so all the changes are posted to the mailing list,
> which I hope will make it easy for people to give them a quick look to
> make sure they look correct (and there's an automatic forum for asking
> questions about anything that's unclear, too).
> Having things posted to the mailing list also means that I have more of
> an opportunity to learn from new content. :)
I like the idea of having something like this very much. In fact,
seeing how much I have forgotten during my inactive time, I very much
wish that there was something like that. So much, that I intended to
document the data structures in the wiki as I proceed through the code.
That's what lead me to ask -- I wanted to do start something very
similar, but in the wiki. I'm worried that a .texi file will leave us
with less to learn, because one won't leave sketchy notes in the .texi file.
Thinking about this, a reasonable alternative would probably be javadoc
style comments in the source. IIUC these will appear in the doxygen
documentation. This way, the documentation will get posted to the
mailing list as in the .texi case, but there's no need to deal with
markup or documentation-style prose.
Anyway, if you think that a .texi file is the way to go, I won't subvert
it by adding wiki pages that are similar in scope, and will try to
contribute to the .texi documentation instead :-)
More information about the Gcc-patches