[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #57138] Categorize graphics properties for better doc readability

[Nicholas Jankowski]

Follow-up Comment #11, bug#57138 (group octave):

What you say for unused vs unimplemented is definitely valid, the latter
should stay up in their respective section. 

For most objects, if a property is listed, it's because we just haven't gotten
around to implementing it yet. So updating these it seems most of what
properties that used to be unused were switched to unimplemented, and I'm
going through finding more now. e.g., apparently matlab introduced valid
children for most, but not all primitives (like lines, patches, etc., but not
text and a couple others).  so those I'll switch to unimpl. (and it seems both
clipping and clippingstyle for axes should be unimplemented, not unused now
that i look at what they mean. clipping in axes affects child objects like an
AND gate. child clipping only occurs if axes AND object clipping is ON.)

I'd suggest 'valid' properties like children should stay in the parent/child
section for text and the others. but others, like 'buttondownfn' for uimenu
(which is only inherited from base, is not even mentioned in any of matlab's
help for uimenu or menu objects, but is present in matlab's uimenu property
list), and maybe some of the 'root' ones, make sense to kick to an unused
section.

Of course, there's still a need in reviewing why they're currently 'unused'. 
some aren't actually unused, they just have default values and are read only. 
like Root:handlevisibility.  it's always On. it's not unused, it's just read
only to 'on' because you can always see the root object. There should probably
be a different way to list than rather than 'unused'.  But we also have
Visible.  it just plain shouldn't be there.  it's not in matlab's property
list. unlike buttondownfn for uimenu, it doesn't even appear in matlab's
get(0) list (did it used to?).  why do we have it there?  ideally we'd strip
it from the objects and thus remove it from the docs.


Also, I think it might make sense to but a category links at the top of the
page to let you jump down to the right section. that would have to be added to
the code block you wrote to sort categories. right now, you still just scroll,
but we took away the full alphabetization to find something easily. A category
list at top would help with that.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57138>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/