Since?

Forum for discussion about the documentation project.
fxm
Moderator
Posts: 12082
Joined: Apr 22, 2009 12:46
Location: Paris suburbs, FRANCE

Re: Since?

Post by fxm »

@Jeff,

Give me the go-ahead when everything is ready so that I can update the keyword pages with their fbc version numbers (like in Topic Sample / Sample Page).
Inserting the new section + fbc version number myself doesn't take more time for me than just filling in the fbc version number only.
coderJeff
Site Admin
Posts: 4313
Joined: Nov 04, 2005 14:23
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Since?

Post by coderJeff »

I've inserted the version section to all the CompilerOpt* pages.

fxm,for safety, can you review a few CompilerOpt* pages before I let my script loose on the KeyPg* pages?
fxm
Moderator
Posts: 12082
Joined: Apr 22, 2009 12:46
Location: Paris suburbs, FRANCE

Re: Since?

Post by fxm »

That seems alright to me.

I see that all revision numbers <1.00.0 have been increased to the value 1.00.0. Instead, we couldn't have not inserted this new section for them (or an empty section).
MrSwiss
Posts: 3910
Joined: Jun 02, 2013 9:27
Location: Switzerland

Re: Since?

Post by MrSwiss »

fxm wrote:Instead, we couldn't have not inserted this new section for them (or an empty section).
Alternative way: just state "before ver. 1.00.0"
coderJeff
Site Admin
Posts: 4313
Joined: Nov 04, 2005 14:23
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Since?

Post by coderJeff »

OK,
- For now, I will only add the version sections for KeyPg* pages that are > 1.00.0, this seems an obvious next step. This will allow us to make some progress while we discuss the rest.
- I will leave the CompilerOpt* pages for now, but I can revert the pages <= 1.00.0 if that seems better.
- In my opinion I would rather have the section omitted than have the section empty
- tracking history before version 1.00.0 seems useless to me so I made the lowest version reported as 1.00.0

My thoughts:
- for completeness and clarity, adding the "version" section to all pages where such information would apply seems a reasonable choice
- I am also in favor of only adding the sections for pages > 1.00.0 and reverting the CompilerOpt* pages <= 1.00.0
- If above is not enough, still allowable to add in the sections for pages <= 1.00.0 later in future after some discussion
MrSwiss
Posts: 3910
Joined: Jun 02, 2013 9:27
Location: Switzerland

Re: Since?

Post by MrSwiss »

coderJeff wrote:- If above is not enough, still allowable to add in the sections for pages <= 1.00.0 later in future after some discussion
I just fear that someone might, at a later stage complain, that the "Version" section is "missing" on some pages.
(aka: have it in all pages for consistencies sake)
just my 2 cents
coderJeff
Site Admin
Posts: 4313
Joined: Nov 04, 2005 14:23
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Since?

Post by coderJeff »

I've added the version section for all KeyPg* pages where version > 1.00.0

It would make me very happy if some members at large like TJF, speedfixer, MrSwiss, and others would participate with the review and edits of documentation. Get involved and spend a little time to help us all out. Don't be afraid to help out.

A few anomalies I noticed so far:
Compiler Option: -z - various -z options appeared on different versions
Dots ... - multiple uses, my test wasn't good enough to select a first version
Class - reserved, but never implemented
Implements - ditto

It would be nice if there were a few contributors that would review and edit some pages. At least then we'd know where the interest is and can focus on a few manual additions of the version section. Blindly inserting the version section for the remaining topics remains an option.
Imortis
Moderator
Posts: 1923
Joined: Jun 02, 2005 15:10
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Since?

Post by Imortis »

coderJeff wrote:I've added the version section for all KeyPg* pages where version > 1.00.0

It would make me very happy if some members at large like TJF, speedfixer, MrSwiss, and others would participate with the review and edits of documentation. Get involved and spend a little time to help us all out. Don't be afraid to help out.

A few anomalies I noticed so far:
Compiler Option: -z - various -z options appeared on different versions
Dots ... - multiple uses, my test wasn't good enough to select a first version
Class - reserved, but never implemented
Implements - ditto

It would be nice if there were a few contributors that would review and edit some pages. At least then we'd know where the interest is and can focus on a few manual additions of the version section. Blindly inserting the version section for the remaining topics remains an option.
I will look into the -z option. If I have time I can look at some of the others as well.

EDIT: Done with that one. The Changelog is missing the info on the valist-as-ptr but I found the commit in github and confirmed it was 1.08.1. Should the changelog be updated to include that info?
coderJeff
Site Admin
Posts: 4313
Joined: Nov 04, 2005 14:23
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Since?

Post by coderJeff »

Imortis wrote:EDIT: Done with that one.
My opinion is it would look better with the version notes in the version section. Since we've never had this section before, I think the -z page can be a test case for working out the form and format where we might want to be more precise in version differences.
The Changelog is missing the info on the valist-as-ptr but I found the commit in github and confirmed it was 1.08.1. Should the changelog be updated to include that info?
Wouldn't hurt and 1.08.1 is last release so makes sense to add the missing log message even after the release.
Imortis
Moderator
Posts: 1923
Joined: Jun 02, 2005 15:10
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Since?

Post by Imortis »

coderJeff wrote: My opinion is it would look better with the version notes in the version section. Since we've never had this section before, I think the -z page can be a test case for working out the form and format where we might want to be more precise in version differences.
Agreed. Check it out now.
fxm
Moderator
Posts: 12082
Joined: Apr 22, 2009 12:46
Location: Paris suburbs, FRANCE

Re: Since?

Post by fxm »

There are several other keywords where the differences depending on the version of fbc (which are simple to describe) can be easily transferred to the "Version" section (I can do this quickly because I wrote them).
But what to do when the differences are important, such as ScreenControl for example ?
coderJeff
Site Admin
Posts: 4313
Joined: Nov 04, 2005 14:23
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Since?

Post by coderJeff »

Imortis wrote:Agreed. Check it out now.
Looks good to me.
fxm wrote:But what to do when the differences are important, such as ScreenControl for example ?
I think the important differences can also be moved to the version section.
Eventually users will learn to check for the Version section .. the ones that read manuals anyway.

If that seems premature, then can leave it as it is and wait for a binary 1.09.0 release and move to the version section after.
I don't know, not every item of information can be the first thing a user reads. Either way, I like that the wiki is up to date with latest fbc development.
fxm
Moderator
Posts: 12082
Joined: Apr 22, 2009 12:46
Location: Paris suburbs, FRANCE

Re: Since?

Post by fxm »

Indeed, the official version and therefore the reference for the moment is 1.08:
- It seems to me better that the differences due to the unofficial 1.09 version remain for the moment (up to the official release output of 1.09) where they are (in the sections Syntax, Usage, Parameters, Description).
- But, for the differences due to previous versions (versions < 1.08), let's try to put these differences in the Version section.

After the official release output of 1.09, this 1.09 version will become the reference and therefore the differences of the 1.08 version with the 1.09 version will then be transferred to the Version section (but current changes put in the Syntax, Usage, Parameters, Description sections).
fxm
Moderator
Posts: 12082
Joined: Apr 22, 2009 12:46
Location: Paris suburbs, FRANCE

Re: Since?

Post by fxm »

fxm wrote:Indeed, the official version and therefore the reference for the moment is 1.08:
- It seems to me better that the differences due to the unofficial 1.09 version remain for the moment (up to the official release output of 1.09) where they are (in the sections Syntax, Usage, Parameters, Description).
- But, for the differences due to previous versions (versions < 1.08), let's try to put these differences in the Version section.
Done:
- KeyPgLen → fxm [differences from versions previous to 1.08 transferred to the Version section]
- KeyPgImageInfo → fxm [differences from versions previous to 1.08 transferred to the Version section]
- KeyPgTypeof → fxm [differences from versions previous to 1.08 transferred to the Version section]
- KeyPgSizeof → fxm [differences from versions previous to 1.08 transferred to the Version section]
- KeyPgScreeninfo → fxm [differences from versions previous to 1.08 transferred to the Version section]
- KeyPgScreencontrol → fxm [differences from versions previous to 1.08 transferred to the Version section]
- KeyPgRnd → fxm [differences from versions previous to 1.08 transferred to the Version section]
- KeyPgRgba → fxm [differences from versions previous to 1.08 transferred to the Version section]
- KeyPgRgb → fxm [differences from versions previous to 1.08 transferred to the Version section]
- KeyPgRandomize → fxm [differences from versions previous to 1.08 transferred to the Version section]
- KeyPgPoint → fxm [differences from versions previous to 1.08 transferred to the Version section]
- KeyPgOpPpConcat → fxm [differences from versions previous to 1.08 transferred to the Version section]
- KeyPgFBArray → fxm [details]
- CompilerOptt → fxm [differences from versions previous to 1.08 transferred to the Version section]
- CompilerOptw → fxm [differences from versions previous to 1.08 transferred to the Version section]
SARG
Posts: 1756
Joined: May 27, 2005 7:15
Location: FRANCE

Re: Since?

Post by SARG »

@fxm I was just looking at some version sections and I guess a wrong copy/paste for typeof.
  • Version:
    Before fbc 1.08.0:
    Typeof was not returning the size of the data fields of a UDT.

However good job, thanks fxm and coderJeff.
Post Reply