[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Graphics objects documentation
From: |
Ben Abbott |
Subject: |
Re: Graphics objects documentation |
Date: |
Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:40:45 -0400 |
On Sep 25, 2014, at 7:51 AM, Pantxo Diribarne <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The current documentation for graphics objects is sparse and inhomogeneous.
> M. Godfrey has already started tidying things up but, as he suggests, it
> would certainly be preferable to automate the doc generation for a few
> reasons:
> * Having properties match between doc and octave interpreter
> * Homogenize the way we document default values, valid values ...
> * Have (as much as possible) common descriptions for properties that are
> shared by all objects (e.g. type, tag, ...)
>
> In order to make a first step I wrote an octave function that pretty much
> does the above mentioned tasks, plus add an @anchor for each item so that we
> can do cross referencing.
>
> Now the questions are:
> * Do people think that this automation process is really worth,
> * Is it acceptable to do this with octave? If so, are there examples of .txi
> files generated by octave scripts somewhere in the doc (I am interested in
> Makefile.in rules examples)?
>
> Pantxo
I like the idea.
Many figures are already produces vias scripts. The doc-strings from the
m-files are also grabbed and placed into the documentation.
For this task, I'd write a script to produced an entire section for the manual
and then use "input" or "include" to place it where it should go.
Ben