Re: Status on API docs, please help to approve it.
- From: "Padraig O'Briain" <Padraig Obriain sun com>
- To: gnome-hackers gnome org, micke codefactory se, Padraig Obriain sun com
- Cc: desktop-devel-list gnome org, gnome-doc-list gnome org, gnome-love gnome org, release-team gnome org
- Subject: Re: Status on API docs, please help to approve it.
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 14:44:29 +0100 (BST)
Responding to my own mail...
If I remove the specification of AtkActionIface from atk-sections.txt I do not
get a report of AtkActionIface as an undocumented symbol.
Padraig
> I have looked at the undocumented symbols in ATK. I have notriced that a
> significant number are similar to AtkActionIface.
>
> There is a similar problem in GTK+ with, for example, GtkCellEditableIface.
Such
> a data structure is output but a data structure such as GtkEditableClass is
not
> output even though the are the same type of data structure.
>
> Would it be possible to suppress the output of data structures whose name ends
> with Iface?
>
> Padraig
>
> >
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Trying to get the API reference documents in better shape for GNOME 2.2
> > I created this summary of the current status of the API docs. It's put
> > together from the *-undocumented.txt files created by gtk-doc. For this
> > list I've used the branches for the GNOME 2.0.x releases and the result
> > might be slightly different for HEAD.
> >
> > glib: 100%
> > gobject: 46% (244/285)
> > linc: 56% (15/12)
> > atk: 82% (188/42)
> > pango: 99% (407/4)
> > bonobo-activation: 77% (23/7)
> > gdk: 100%
> > gtk: 89% (2139/258)
> > gdk-pixbuf: 100%
> > gconf: 42% (114/155)
> > libbonobo: 39% (187/288)
> > gnome-vfs: 42% (172/234)
> > libglade: 81% (42/10)
> > libgnome: 100%
> > libgnomecanvas: 75% (101/33)
> > libgnomeui: 57% (488/374) (** Malcolm is working on this **)
> > libgnomeprint: 20% (48/190)
> > gail: 81% (13/3)
> > gnome-panel: 64% (18/10)
> > vte: 0% no docs at all.
> >
> > Looking at this some of the modules shouldn't be too hard to get up to
> > 100% while some others would require more help.
> >
> > I've also tried to add the API-doc keyword to all the bugs I could find
> > about it in the GNOME Bugzilla. It's only the Gtk+ (with friends)
> > modules that keeps a close tracks of API documentation bugs (at least
> > that I could find easily. If you are a maintainer of a core library and
> > know that you have API doc items in your bugzilla modules, please add
> > the API-doc keyword to them. Please also add me 'micke codefactory se'
> > to the CC-line so that I can help track these issues.
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1CB231A1
> >
> > If you are interested in helping out on documenting some of these
> > modules please let me know and I'll try to help out coordinate the
> > effort.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mikael Hallendal
> > --
> > Mikael Hallendal micke codefactory se
> > CodeFactory AB http://www.codefactory.se/
> > Office: +46 (0)8 587 583 05 Cell: +46 (0)709 718 918
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > desktop-devel-list gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]