Re: [ng-spice] Docs


To <ng-spice@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it>
From "pauline wood" <jpee@wuds.freeserve.co.uk>
Date Fri, 3 Sep 1999 00:24:05 +0100
Delivered-To mailing list ng-spice@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it
Mailing-List contact ng-spice-help@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it; run by ezmlm
Reply-To ng-spice@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it


-----Original Message-----
From: Manu Rouat <emmanuel.rouat@wanadoo.fr>
To: ng-spice@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it <ng-spice@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it>
Date: 02 September 1999 22:43
Subject: Re: [ng-spice] Docs


By all means move the old help system out of the source tree but
please allow us to compile it back in as an option.
I know the help was not good but I've got used to it as it was the
only option for many years
I would miss pressing ? then lots of mouse clicks [in places I
know well].
 Many of the other existing spice users might be
put off  ng-spice  if the old X-Windows help disappears.
Please reconsider.

John Wood



>Arno wrote:
>
>> The online documentation should be compiled into the program (as
>> opposed to be put in a separate file).  This allows for i18n using the
>> gettext library.  For a more extensive treatment of the subject, we
>> could fork an info reader or web browser and have it search for the
>> relevant term in the index.  This is what Octave (a Matlab
>> replacement) does.  It works quite nicely.
>
>Agreed. But don't we have the same problem with gettext as with readline?
I'm
>not sure whether gettext is GPL or not (but read my next post about
licensing
>issues)
>
>
>>
>> So far, the texinfo manual mostly covers the needs of the seasoned
>> users.  It mostly lacks a good index to be truly useful.  On the other
>> hand, I would like to see the descriptions of the devices be put in
>> their respective directories.  This also fits nicely into the proposed
>> library approach to the device simulation.  The final reference
>> documentation can include the different parts.
>
>I think this is rather heavy - don't forget that many devices have been
>very well documented elsewhere (like bsim3 for instance). Should we include
>this documentation? I'd rather do the documentation as a reference, but
distribute
>it separately (via a web page would be the easiest - we can put links)
>
>We should only supply a users manual in the tar.gz.
>
>> Let it be clear that I am all in favour of junking the old system.
>
>yup.
>
>
>manu
>
>
>


Partial thread listing: