Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation
dburgun at dsl.pipex.com
Wed Nov 30 08:48:37 EST 2005
>>David Burgun wrote:
>>>>I learnt Hypercard without a book,
>>>>and I extended my knowledge, as RR extended xTalk, in the
>>>That's great if you have all the time in the world to "doing" it
>>>wrong many times! Especially when the documentaion is just plain
>>As with the spelling of "documentation" in that sentence, human
>>error can creep into just about anything.
>While there's always room to expand on the material that's there, I
>don't recall any recent issue you've raised here in which the
>documentation was "just plain wrong".
This is from the Answer command:
The prompt is a string (or any expression that evaluates to a
string). The dialog box expands if necessary to fit the contents.
This just doesn't happen, in many cases it just gets chopped off.
There are other instances, but I really can't be bothered to find
them right now.
Actually I didn't particually mean RunRev in this case, I meant any
system. The point I was making is that with other systems there is a
"bible" you can refer to or many other sources of information that
allow you to find the error, for instance, I have a book on C++ that
is factually wrong, I hit that problem, I can look at a whole host of
other C++ books or even the "White" book to see what is *supposed* to
RunRev is different in this respect and many times no one seems to
actually know what is *supposed* to happen and I get a number of work
arounds to a problem (from this list mainly) that may or may not work
in all situations.
I was also pointing out that the general pace of software development
has changed over the past 25 years and that back then there was time
for much more for Trial and Error than today.
>Sure, some sections could be expanded to address a wider range of
>needs, and for the love of Koresh I'd love to see a new TOC.
A book or books like Inside Mac would be just fine as far I'm
concerned, also a book like the K&R C book which defines what is
*supposed* to happen would be good too. Something that is the LAW and
if the implementation differs then it's the implementation that is
wrong, not the documentation.
>But factually incorrect? I'm sure there are errors in there, but no
>more so than with any other documentation project of such scope, and
>none that I can recall as related to the issues you've raised here
There are quite a few instances that I have found in the docs that
are factually incorrect. This can happen I agree as with anything
human. The thing is that in the case of the answer dialog it has been
known about for a long time it seems. We have just had a new release
of RunRev but the documentation was not changed. This is the problem,
not that there are errors in the docs, just that they are not fixed
or updated promptly either to make the code match the docs or the
docs match the code.
My Dairy of RunRev is a lot simpler!
Day One: This is just GREAT I Love it!
Week 3 - Why are there so many silly problems with it that spoil the
Month 18 - Why are there so many silly problems with it that spoil
Take Care and All the Best
More information about the Use-livecode