On Jun 15, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Martin Peach wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Jun 15, 2010, at 6:58 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-06-15 12:48, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
don't mistake "bad practice IMHO" for "bad practice".
Of course. But I meant, "do you really think that....?"
me too.
fgmasdr IOhannes
Yes, I really think that its bad practice to have multiple objects
use a single help patch. We talked about this at length in the
PDDP meetings. It makes things confusing to newbies and it usually
means the shared help patches don't illustrate the individual
objects well. The only reason to do it that way is laziness IMHO.Well the original post related to [routeOSC] and [unpackOSC] using
the same help file. I did that because [unpackOSC] is fairly useless
on its own and [routeOSC] won't work without [unpackOSC] ahead of
it. Also [slipenc] and [slipdec] are easier to demonstrate using a
single help patch. Is having two identical patches with different
names somehow better? If I use class_sethelpsymbol the user will get
the correct help patch if they right-click 'help'. I suspect most
peeps do it that way instead of drilling down into the externals
looking for help patches.
This is a good example of what I am talking about. It would be silly
to make a help patch for [packOSC] without [unpackOSC], but that
doesn't mean that they are the same thing. The [packOSC] help file
should cover all the possibilities of [packOSC] and use [unpackOSC]
and whatever else to illustrate them. Adding all the possibilities of
[unpackOSC] to the [packOSC] unnecessarily complicates the [packOSC]
help patch. Therefore there should also be an [unpackOSC] help patch.
.hc
All information should be free. - the hacker ethic