Re: [MMXX-dev] New stuff

[Frank V. C. <fr...@co...>]

Luca Raggi wrote:

> On 5/2/2000 7:15 AM, Frank V. Castellucci (fr...@co...)
> shared his wisdom:
>
> >Couple of release points:
> >
> >I caught some flak over not using the automake, autoconf, and libtool
> >release standards. Your call.
>
> [snip]
> This might become a good idea later, i.e. if/when the MMXX support code
> itself becomes a MMXX-enabled library, but this is definitely not going
> to happen before the ABI settles down to its final form and/or its object
> size becomes significant. At the moment isolating the MMXX support code
> in a library would actually *increase* overall object size (because we'd
> be adding an extra module), and since there's no MMXX libraries out there
> yet, for now I think it'd be mostly a headache.
>

As I said, your call, it's ok by me the way you distribute with the exception
of one thing, if the directory could expand to MMXX-X.Y.Z or whatever release
numbering/identification schema you are using. This way (assuming the
makefiles work off relative locations) testing could occur in the new release
location, and if the user/developer feels good about it they can just rename
the directory.

>
> >
> >I hate doing it myself, but I beg you: At least provide serious
> >documentation in the headers!!!
> >
>
> Hehe yes, you're absolutely right. I've been adding a bit with this
> release, unfortunately one problem I've been running into is that as soon
> as I comment something, I revise it soon after to make the comment
> obsolete, worse yet I tend to forget about having written it which ends
> up deceiving the reader! As things stabilize further I will be adding
> more.

I agree it requires discipline to keep it current, but a notice in the
release notes that something has changed in regards to signatures, method
names, etc. is adequate to let the users know this.

Also consider, now being better than later, in using a comment tagging that
is recognized by tools like doc++ or doxygen or whatever. I say now because
you won't have alot of reworking to do.

> Documentation is really a major issue at this stage, since 90% or so of
> the 1.0 features are there, now is about the right time to start focusing
> on it. I've extended the "overview" file, I promise I will add to the
> "advanced internals" file to cover some of the many missing aspects, but
> other than that I'd really need to get some help here. BTW if we're to
> revise the terminology, this would be a great time to do that also. Once
> those are done, and we get some tutorials and decent test suites, we
> could move to Alpha status and start "marketing" to users.

My intent was to start focusing on the terminology with the latest download.
I just need a bit of time to understand it. Which is why the "doc" points I
mentioned appeared, it would make it easier. But hang in there, I will
respond within the next few days in regards to terminology.

> BTW, if you ask questions here on the list I'd be happy to answer them.
> That way there's a record of at least some of the confusing aspects, and
> the bits and pieces that come through here might become part of a FAQ
> later.

Err, I assume you were making this statement for the general public as I
thought I posted on the list, neh?

> Ciao!
> Luca
>
> _________________
> MMXX-dev: http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mmxx-dev