| Re: [AD] xfixicon documentation |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 08:43 +0100, Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz wrote:
> On 2004-07-28, Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I see no difference between looking at the PDF or the CHM docs
> > here.
>
> Compare the HTML toc and find search in the PDF for:
>
> "A general introduction to allegro" (and related build files)
> Everything from the changelog to the Conclusion.
Yes, I see it now. I can't say I follow the rationale behind what is in
the PDF and what not.
E.g. if the PDF version is supposed to be printed out, then it should
contain the API compatibility section.. actually, I think it should
contain everything the HTML docs do.
In any case, since there apparently already are differences, the
@chapter command would be even easier. It could be simply ignored
everywhere where it makes no sense.
>
> > I like the idea of monolothic docs. Instead of having to hunt for
> > docs, I just have one place to find everything. But, I must admit,
> > I have no idea how much work it would be to add this to makedoc :)
>
> A monolithic doc with a hierarchical toc which includes external
> files and is visually the same in all output formats is probably the
> same to write in C than to write it from scratch in a higher level
> language. I guess I will have to start cleaning the dust from the
> makedoc CVS module. At least this time the C version doesn't have
> much more room to improve.
>
Heh, yeah, I was afraid of that. I'm wondering if it makesm much sense
to put in things like grabber.txt or the build/*.txt with the current
flat hierarchy though..
--
Elias Pschernig