Re: gpsim, documentation

Excuseme for not answering in time, I was low the effects of the flu.
Now that I read well the translation of what I wrote ... there is some
inconsistencies but you to caught totally what it he wanted to say.
With regard to the doxygen it is fantastic, I did not know that anything 
like
that existed, I have downloaded it with urpmi and am experiencing it close
to the Kdevelop.
Well, I will see that it is what I achieve hereabouts and if I can 
contribute something to gpsim.
For the present I have compiled and using successfully gpsim-0.21.11, but
I do not manage to compile the version downloaded from the svn.
Which are the steps to continuing after coming out from the svn?

Regards and thanks.

Néstor A. Marchesini
Chajari-Entre Rios-Argentina
ICQ # 50983752 colo
MSN [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.deselectronica.com.ar

Scott Dattalo escribió:

> Nestor,
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. (I think something got 
> lost in the translation!). But if I have to guess, I think you're 
> suggesting that if gpsim had documentation describing the software 
> design that it would be easier for others to contribute to the 
> project. This is undoubtedly true. Unfortunately, I have not made any 
> developer documentation and it is not high on my list of priorities. I 
> have experimented time to time with doxygen. In fact, at one point I 
> even attempted to write some of the class comments in a form that 
> doxygen can intelligently parse. You can try experimenting with this 
> if you like. It's especially enlightening to see the massive class 
> hierarchy! However, to be useful someone needs to go through and 
> document each member function of every class.
>
> Another useful piece of documentation would be something to give a 
> high level overview of the code flow. I did write something like this 
> a very long time ago and placed it in the back of gpsim's user guide. 
> This could stand to be revisited and improved upon, but maybe it's 
> enough to get you going for now.
>
> Oh, patches don't only have to be for code... Feel free to submit a 
> documentation patch too!
>
> Scott