I noticed, that http://www.php.net/~helly/php/ext/spl/ was updated
almost a year ago. Is the newer version available anywhere?
--
Alexey Zakhlestin
http://blog.milkfarmsoft.com/
I noticed, that http://www.php.net/~helly/php/ext/spl/ was updated
almost a year ago. Is the newer version available anywhere?
Good point, there're so many new things in there. Marcus? Etienne?
Anyone up to do regenerate some docs ?
Thanks,
D
Hi,
I've a more recent build that covers DLLists, but only Marcus is able to
upload it to ~helly.
I guess a new version will be online as soon as I finish documenting Heaps
and priority queues.
Regards
I noticed, that http://www.php.net/~helly/php/ext/spl/http://www.php.net/%7Ehelly/php/ext/spl/was updated
almost a year ago. Is the newer version available anywhere?Good point, there're so many new things in there. Marcus? Etienne?
Anyone up to do regenerate some docs ?Thanks,
D--
--
Etienne Kneuss
http://www.colder.ch
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from a religious conviction.
-- Pascal
I noticed, that http://www.php.net/~helly/php/ext/spl/<http://www.php.net/%7Ehelly/php/ext/spl/
was updated
almost a year ago. Is the newer version available anywhere?Good point, there're so many new things in there. Marcus? Etienne?
Anyone up to do regenerate some docs ?
I've a more recent build that covers DLLists, but only Marcus is
able to
upload it to ~helly.I guess a new version will be online as soon as I finish documenting
Heaps
and priority queues.
I think all effort should go into writing real documentation within
the phpdoc cvs module instead of unreadable and unofficial doxygen
output. Personally I feel the link to the doxygen output should be
removed from php.net/spl (but won't) so anyway those are my feelings.
Etienne is planning to work on both, which is great, but I encourage
everyone to update the official spl documentation and not worry much
about doxygen.
Regards,
Philip
I think all effort should go into writing real documentation within the
phpdoc cvs module instead of unreadable and unofficial doxygen output.
Personally I feel the link to the doxygen output should be removed from
php.net/spl (but won't) so anyway those are my feelings. Etienne is planning
to work on both, which is great, but I encourage everyone to update the
official spl documentation and not worry much about doxygen.
I agree with you on the part that efforts should be put for the phpdoc
but I personally consider doxygen's output to be much more complete
than any phpdoc output.
The doxygen output is very technical and usually if you are looking
for something very specific, you'll find it. PHPDocs and Doxygen
outputs are really 2 separate beasts, for instance with Doxygen you'll
see a clear hierarchy between the objects/classes and which classes
they inherit and implement whereas the phpdoc will describe the
functions clearly. There are many things that doxygen does that phpdoc
doesn't do and the same for phpdoc and doxygen.
Anyways, I think we still need that doxygen output and it would be
plain bad to scrap it.
D
Hi!
I think all effort should go into writing real documentation within the
phpdoc cvs module instead of unreadable and unofficial doxygen output.
I think having core module that is documented by doxygen is a shame. And
if there's anybody working on docs, the work should be done first on
official docs in the manual, which right now are in the "virtually
non-existent" state. Doxygen is a nice thing but no replacement for real
documentation.
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
I think having core module that is documented by doxygen is a shame. And if
there's anybody working on docs, the work should be done first on official
docs in the manual, which right now are in the "virtually non-existent"
state. Doxygen is a nice thing but no replacement for real documentation.
Jesus christ! What's the amplitude this is taking ? We are not talking
about keeping SPL ONLY documented in Doxygen, it's simply a nice
addition to have it DOT.
The only thing that Alexey asked was if there was some regenerated
docs. Please, if you feel like you still have problems with SPL in the
core or any other problems with documentation of extensions because of
it's documentation, just start another thread. This one should be long
over, the point was just to ask Marcus to put a new generated version
online not to start a war on SPL's doxygen's documentation.
Thanks,
D
David Coallier wrote:
The only thing that Alexey asked was if there was some regenerated
docs. Please, if you feel like you still have problems with SPL in the
core or any other problems with documentation of extensions because of
it's documentation, just start another thread. This one should be long
over, the point was just to ask Marcus to put a new generated version
online not to start a war on SPL's doxygen's documentation.Thanks,
D
I'll start the new thread. ;)
I think the point being that the PHPDOC for SPL is limited is valid.
There are some things that PHPDOC seems to cover better than Doxygen
does and vise versa.
From a PHP developer standpoint, it would be nice if PHPDOC had more
than just "see the Doxygen docs". Doxygen does cover the OO in good
detail, and that is nice. But some things are not explained well enough
like PHPDOC.
So, personally I'd like to see PHPDOC explain what each class/method is
and how to use them. Then have the Doxygen detail the reflection kinds
of stuff for the classes.
David Coallier wrote:
The only thing that Alexey asked was if there was some regenerated
docs. Please, if you feel like you still have problems with SPL in the
core or any other problems with documentation of extensions because of
it's documentation, just start another thread. This one should be long
over, the point was just to ask Marcus to put a new generated version
online not to start a war on SPL's doxygen's documentation.Thanks,
DI'll start the new thread. ;)
JFYI: you don't start a new thread by replying to an email from another one.
Your reply still belongs to the original thread.
--
Wbr,
Antony Dovgal
Philip Olson wrote:
I noticed, that
http://www.php.net/~helly/php/ext/spl/http://www.php.net/%7Ehelly/php/ext/spl/was
updated
almost a year ago. Is the newer version available anywhere?Good point, there're so many new things in there. Marcus? Etienne?
Anyone up to do regenerate some docs ?I've a more recent build that covers DLLists, but only Marcus is able to
upload it to ~helly.I guess a new version will be online as soon as I finish documenting
Heaps
and priority queues.I think all effort should go into writing real documentation within the
phpdoc cvs module instead of unreadable and unofficial doxygen output.
Personally I feel the link to the doxygen output should be removed from
php.net/spl (but won't) so anyway those are my feelings. Etienne is
planning to work on both, which is great, but I encourage everyone to
update the official spl documentation and not worry much about doxygen.
+1
This finally makes sense with the new doc style, which is OO-friendly.
Greg
Hello Philip,
Friday, April 11, 2008, 7:29:48 PM, you wrote:
I noticed, that http://www.php.net/~helly/php/ext/spl/<http://www.php.net/%7Ehelly/php/ext/spl/
was updated
almost a year ago. Is the newer version available anywhere?Good point, there're so many new things in there. Marcus? Etienne?
Anyone up to do regenerate some docs ?
I've a more recent build that covers DLLists, but only Marcus is
able to
upload it to ~helly.I guess a new version will be online as soon as I finish documenting
Heaps
and priority queues.
I think all effort should go into writing real documentation within
the phpdoc cvs module instead of unreadable and unofficial doxygen
output. Personally I feel the link to the doxygen output should be
removed from php.net/spl (but won't) so anyway those are my feelings.
Etienne is planning to work on both, which is great, but I encourage
everyone to update the official spl documentation and not worry much
about doxygen.
Personally I tried for year to get some feedback on getting documentation
to support classes. And we still do not have any acceptable support. So I
went on and provided all documnetation in source code. That said there
should be three easy ways to proceed:
-
delete all my documentation and/or simply ignore what I did and write
whatever documentation you guys want. The code I use for doxygen would
still be useable to understand the code and even allows to replace parts of
SPL on installations of PHP prior to 5.3 where SPL is disabled. -
Do not change anything at all and continue to improve the documentation
on php.net. Obviously in both versions we might be thinking of keeping or
removing the link to my doxygen stuff. -
Finally support inheritance in the documentation and either generate
inheritance- and call-graphs for the manual or simply use doxygens xml
format and png output to generate the graphs for the manual. This way we
could even use the docu in the example/replacement code as a basis for the
manual.
Maybe this explains why there is the doxygen stuff. And just once more: I
never tried to overthrow the manual or be better or replace it or whatever.
In fact I only wanted to get the graphs and never got any help to improve
the docs in anyway. So any help to improve the docs are welcome.
Now regarding updates. Updates will come as there is something to update.
The situation is that I could regenerate the doxygen outpiut. But all we
would get is a manual for unreleased features. In other words the current
doxygen output should reflect the current state, that is 5.2.
marcus
Hi!
Personally I tried for year to get some feedback on getting documentation
to support classes. And we still do not have any acceptable support. So I
My impression is PhD now supports classes quite well. There are even
skeletons as I understand :) I wonder how hard would it be to write a
script to generate half-baked docbook files from the same data doxygen
works with (my guesstimate would be couple of days effort, but that's
just a guess :) for later manual editing.
- delete all my documentation and/or simply ignore what I did and write
whatever documentation you guys want. The code I use for doxygen would
I think deleting any docs would be a waste, and doxygen docs definitely
have its use. They just don't replace the manual.
- Finally support inheritance in the documentation and either generate
inheritance- and call-graphs for the manual or simply use doxygens xml
I think manual needs just plain old method descriptions, etc. much more
that inheritance graphs. Not to say those can't be useful - they can -
but right now we don't have even the bare minimum - list of classes and
methods which may say in plain text what inherits what. Once we have
that, we might proceed to doing more cool stuff like inheritance graphs.
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com