Re: Graphics objects documentation

[Michael Godfrey]

On 09/25/2014 12:51 PM, Pantxo Diribarne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The current documentation for graphics objects is sparse and 
> inhomogeneous. M. Godfrey has already started tidying things up but, 
> as he suggests,  it would certainly be preferable to automate the doc 
> generation for a few reasons:
> * Having properties match between doc and octave interpreter
> * Homogenize the way we document default values, valid values ...
> * Have (as much as possible) common descriptions for properties that 
> are shared by all objects (e.g. type, tag, ...)
>
> In order to make a first step I wrote an octave function that pretty 
> much does the above mentioned tasks, plus add an @anchor for each item 
> so that we can do cross referencing.
>
> Now the questions are:
> * Do people think that this automation process is really worth,
> * Is it acceptable to do this with octave?  If so, are there examples 
> of .txi files generated  by octave scripts somewhere in the doc (I am 
> interested in Makefile.in rules examples)?
>
> Pantxo
Obviously I think this is a very good idea!  And, since octave is 
already used to
generate the plots that are shown in the Manual, it can (really must) be 
used
to generate the property documentation.

Thanks for taking this on!

Michael