Macros usually come in two flavours, the Fully Developped Macro and the Quickly-made
Hack.
It seems that the writers of the first type tend to document them already (see Chris
Colefax for
the best example available). Now many people may make some quick & dirty macros as an
answer to
someone's question, and these macros may be very interesting but difficult to document
due to their
on-the-fly, short-lived status. Personnally I document my "big" macros,  give them
version numbers,
try to credit the people who wrote some code I'm using (though I have no standard way
to do it). I
also provide working examples whenever possible, which could be another requirement
for macro
diffusion.

Gilles Tran

Cliff Bowman wrote:

> Of course, one could go further - we could include version numbers in
> maco/include files (including a standard way of indicating whether
> this is an approved new version or *just* a third party hack), and
> allsorts. There would probably come a time, however, where such
> documentation would be overbearing - possibly even exceeding the size
> of the 'active' portion of the code.
>
> Thoughts and comments please - would I be alone in desiring some brief
> "standardised" documentation for macro/include files? If not, what do
> you think ought to be included - and how should it be presented?
>
> While I'm at it - who do I ask about adding the ".mcr" extension to
> the list of POV files for opening/saving/colour-encoding when editing?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff Bowman
> Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/7855/
> PS change ".duffnet" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message