[fpc-pascal] *** GMX Spamverdacht *** Re: Documentation, syntax diagrams

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:

> Am 11.01.2014 19:58, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
>>> Why this inconsistency?
>> I don't necessarily consider this inconsistent.
>
> Why not?
> Do you mean syntax diagrams don't need any logic?

In their headers ? No. In the content ? Yes.

>>> If the diagrams stay like this they are too confusing to be of any use.
>> That is your opinion, to which you are of course entitled.
>> Feel free to make suggestions for improvements. If I consider the 
> suggestions good, I will certainly incorporate them.
>
> How kind you are...
> Now if that is not arrogant...

That is not arrogant. I am the author of the documentation.
So it is entirely my decision what goes in it and what not.
So I'm just stating a fact.

>
> You seem to imply that I am demanding something for myself.
> But I only report these documentation problems for potential new users
> because I think that Pascal should be used by more people
> while you seem to not care about them.

Well, you seem to think that you represent 'all users' which is 'arrogant' imho.

I think we just differ in opinion on what consitutes a good diagram.
So, it is my opinion against yours.

Your problem with the captions of the diagram I do not consider to be a 
general problem of the diagrams, but I think it is more you personally who 
cannot accept the form of the diagrams. Hence, I will not change that aspect.

But as I said: if I agree with one of your opinions, I will certainly take it to heart.

What is more: I have already done so. As a result of your remarks I have changed
the type diagram, and I added a section on type aliases.

That is all there is to say about it.

Michael.