[This is cross-posted; followups to the Doc-SIG only, please!] Thomas Heller writes: > Hm, in the good old days this was the only way ;-) > because the chances where at most 50% that this stuff > was undocumented. I think a lot of us here remember when that 50% was less than 5%, and there was no C API manual. ;-) I still remember seeing the checkin message for api.tex 1.1. > But the docs have improved in the meantime, now you > could also use *them*. Which brings me to the issue of a decent index. (What doesn't, eventually?) We currently have two documents that discuss the C API, though they take (mostly) different approaches. The API reference has a tolerable index (the symbols are there, at least), but the Extending & Embedding document doesn't have enough index entries to be very useful (so little we don't even include an index), even though it contains some strongly overlapping information. I *think* it might be a good idea to merge the two documents, but I'm not certain I really like that. There is a strong need to add good index entries to the existing Extending & Embedding document at the very least, and a combined index would be very valuable. This is something that's been requested for the entire set of documents on many occaisions, and would be very handy. (Especially if we provided a better interface for it!) -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> PythonLabs at Zope Corporation
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4