On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, George Greer wrote:
> If we ever autogenerated documentation, sure. Until then there isn't
> anything else actually made except in src/.
That was part of the reason why, since I figured it wouldn't hurt to
provide the documentation in HTML, PostScript, or whatever else. Since
Jeremy is autogenerating the docs (isn't he? I seem to recall him getting
tired of using SGML, though), it only makes sense to provide users the
same level.
One other reason was that I was reluctant to have a Makefile rule in src/
that deletes files in a directory above it. With the warning, of course,
it's really their fault if they do it and don't abort when they have a
chance.
The next thought was to change the ref rules to autogenerate documentation
in doc/ref/ from src/, rather than hardcoding Jeremy's home directory in
there.
In short, my thinking was three-fold:
* Eventually we will be autogenerating documentation. (The man page!)
* Could be a bit mischevious to delete files in ../lib/, etc. in make.
* It'd be nice to have the cxref rules work without modification and
since it falls half-way between working with source and working with
documentation, the rule doesn't really belong in either place.
Just my thoughts. There's no particularly convincing reason to do it one
way or the other. Then again:
% tar xyf circle30bpl18.tar.bz2
% cd circle30bpl18
% ./configure; make; autorun &
Would get a mud up. Not that using 'cd src/' and 'cd ..' make it any
harder, or that we necessarily want people to be able to type three
commands to have a Mud up-and-running...
-dak
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html |
| Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/03/01 PST