fenics team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 28/04/10 17:26, Anders Logg wrote:
> 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?

Possible, but someone needs to do it and figure out a syntax do indicate 
what line to extract.

Garth

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