[wp-hackers] Inline documentation

Rob r at robm.me.uk
Mon Feb 20 01:03:06 GMT 2006

Robert Deaton wrote:
> On 2/20/06, Matt Mullenweg <m at mullenweg.com> wrote:
>> David House wrote:
>>> As Matt has expressed his distaste for comments before really short
>>> functions, here's a more complicated example for list_cats()
>>> (attached).
>> What you attached looks like a complicated and less readable version of
>> this:
>> http://codex.wordpress.org/Template_Tags/list_cats
>> Maybe we should just have a link to a Codex page for each complicated
>> function? That has the side effect of being printable and googleable. It
>> can also be updated by anyone, and include rich examples and/or screenshots.
> -1, the codex is far too unreliable as far as I'm concerned, half the
> time its timing out, nowadays its been giving random 500 errors, the
> rest of the time its terribly slow. On being less readable, I think it
> has the advantage of being easier to read than shifting through all
> kinds of useless stuff for developers that's located on the codex,
> since it is geared more toward the end users than those developing the
> source.
> --
> --Robert Deaton
> http://somethingunpredictable.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
Surely it would be more prudent to address the problems with the Codex, 
as opposed to dismissing it and moving to inline documentation?

Rob Miller
http://robm.me.uk/ | http://kantian.co.uk/

More information about the wp-hackers mailing list