fenics team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:05:19PM +0200, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
>
>
> On 28 April 2010 11:59, Garth N. Wells <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 27/04/10 13:52, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On 27 April 2010 14:18, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Any ideas on how to keep the code in the documentation and the actual
> >>>demos in sync? Should we have a script that copies all the source
> >>>files? Or should we do the opposite: extract the demos from the
> >>>documentation?
> >>
> >>Good question, initially I thought copying from DOLFIN to documentation
> >>was the way to go, but on second thought the other way around might be
> >>better.
> >>The reason is that if the demos break, then they will be fixed in the
> >>documentation which makes is more likely that the accompanying text (and
> >>code snippets) will also be corrected.
> >>
> >
> >We'll usually have the source code for a demo broken into pieces in the
> >documentation with an explanation for each part of the code (rather than one
> >big chunk), so how would this work with syncing to the actual demo code?
>
> I think the entire main.cpp file (and UFL ) should be available for download as it is now.
> Then, if a demo breaks one will have to manually modify the code snippets and the text.
> (and of course the code in main.cpp and the UFL file if appropriate)

Shouldn't it be possible to write a script that extracts the pieces
and patches them together?

That way, the buildbot will test nightly that the documentation makes
sense.

--
Anders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature