Re: What should a documentation contain, and what not

From: John Zweizig (jzweizig@ligo.caltech.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 13 1999 - 20:23:22 MEST


Walter F.J. Mueller wrote:

>It worries me a little that the `source browser' is considered one of the
>more important features in the ROOT documentation. It should be superfluous
>for most, applications should be written against an interface specification,
>not against an implementation.

I agree entirely. The fact that the root source code provides useful 
documentation is a sad comment on the state of the documentation of the root 
classes. I have found many methods with parameter lists of single character 
variable names where there is no mention of how the parameters are used, what 
units are assumed, etc. Perhaps the most useful feature a documentation tool can 
have is to encourage the author to provide all the necessary information by e.g. 
requiring a description of all non-void parameters and return values.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 00:43:40 MET