Re: [AD] Documentation/tutorial

[Matthew Leverton <meffer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In practice, no one gets updated documentation until a new version of
Allegro is released. I don't think tutorials should be bound to
Allegro for (primarily) this reason. It's just extra bloat that will
need to be maintained and kept up to date as Allegro changes.

Tutorials are a good thing, and they should be readily available, but
including them in the official Allegro distribution is a bad thing,
IMHO. We've already got examples that clearly show how different parts
of Allegro work.

--
Matthew Leverton - matthew@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.allegro.cc


On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:35:04 +0200, Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 22:06 +0200, Evert Glebbeek wrote:
> > I've been thinking about the documentation improvements. What is currently
> > not in the default documentation is a tutorial.
> > Now that we have proper documentation chapters, how about adding one?
> > I'd propose updating and including George Foot's Vivace tutorial. Any
> > thoughts on this?
> >
> 
> I agree, it would be a good idea to have an official tutorial. Vivace
> seems quite big.. but that's not necessariy a bad thing :)
> 
> On the technical side.. we have a @chapter command now, so that gives
> @chapter, @heading, @hnode. A 3-level TOC at most. Vivace already uses 4
> though apparently. So even if we make it a wholly separate ._tx file
> linked in with @externalfile - it would need to be flattened a bit. Or
> maybe we should add a forth TOC level to makedoc?
> 
> --
> Elias Pschernig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
> Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us
> Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more
> http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
> --
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alleg-developers
>