[PD] documentation (was: DSP abstractions)

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,
Mathieu Bouchard hat gesagt: // Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

> By emphasising $1,2,3,4 it makes $5 that much more difficult and
> especially it makes it boring. At least if you're writing tricky
> documentation and you don't like writing documentation you can have
> a sense that you're doing something tricky which uses your
> intelligence, whereas applying $1,2,3,4 is not. Item $4 is
> especially infuriating because it puts the respect of top-down rules
> of documentation more important than effective communication, which
> may (and will) conflict with $5,$6,$7,$8, especially if $4 doesn't
> doesn't include provisions for straying away from mere form-filling.

My thoughts, precisely! 

> >And a service discovery bridge may also be built later as a decorator 
> >abstraction itself around the original abstractions.
> 
> You mean like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decorator_pattern ?
> (original page at http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?DecoratorPattern )

Yes, I meant it as a reference to that design pattern, but more to the
problem it tries to solve i.e. adding functionality to existing
objects and not as much to the proposed solution i.e. adding that
behaviour at runtime. I guess I'm proposing simple "subclassing" or
wrapper-abstractions as solution. But actually I'm trying to not to
propose anything at all at this stage.

Ciao
-- 
 Frank Barknecht                 _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__