API-Reference is missing

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

API-Reference is missing

Gtkmm mailing list
Hello!

The list of API-References regarding C++[1] is outdated and links to an empty page, also changing it to 3.24 doesn't help either:
https://developer.gnome.org/gtkmm/3.22/
https://developer.gnome.org/gtkmm/3.24/

The last one working is:
https://developer.gnome.org/gtkmm/3.20/
The current development version is neither working, but the other two development versions are working.

Who can create API-Reference for 3.24? The links to other library refernces, are also not in good condition. Can I help maybe?

Thank you

[1] https://developer.gnome.org/references#c++-bindings
_______________________________________________
gtkmm-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: API-Reference is missing

Gtkmm mailing list
This is already reported at https://gitlab.gnome.org/Infrastructure/library-web/issues/12 (among 10s of other duplicates in an issue list that it seems no one is maintaining)



_______________________________________________
gtkmm-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: API-Reference is missing

Kasper Peeters-2
> This is already reported at
> https://gitlab.gnome.org/Infrastructure/library-web/issues/12 (among
> 10s of other duplicates in an issue list that it seems no one is
> maintaining)

What is most worrying is that it seems to be next to impossible to
reach anyone responsible for the GNOME web sites. Are there simply no
GNOME people left anymore except for a few people who organise the
occasional hackfest and do not care about getting anyone else on board?

Cheers,
Kasper
_______________________________________________
gtkmm-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: API-Reference is missing

Gtkmm mailing list
I am also frustrated with the documentation available for gtkmm. I
have to instead look into gtk docs and try to guess the equivalent
gtkmm code. If possible I could also help in doing anything necessary
or automating the whole process document generation.

Regards,
Compro

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 5:23 PM Kasper Peeters
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > This is already reported at
> > https://gitlab.gnome.org/Infrastructure/library-web/issues/12 (among
> > 10s of other duplicates in an issue list that it seems no one is
> > maintaining)
>
> What is most worrying is that it seems to be next to impossible to
> reach anyone responsible for the GNOME web sites. Are there simply no
> GNOME people left anymore except for a few people who organise the
> occasional hackfest and do not care about getting anyone else on board?
>
> Cheers,
> Kasper
> _______________________________________________
> gtkmm-list mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
_______________________________________________
gtkmm-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: API-Reference is missing

Gtkmm mailing list
Btw, if anyone in this latest thread doesn't know yet, you can substitute 3.20 into the URLs for documentation pointing at 3.22/3.24/stable and usually set something that's *almost* relevant, although 3.20 is increasingly old.

Failing that, hopefully your package manage installed the documentation into /usr/share/doc alongside the main package, or has a separate doc package available.


On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 04:23, Compro Prasad via gtkmm-list <[hidden email]> wrote:
I am also frustrated with the documentation available for gtkmm. I
have to instead look into gtk docs and try to guess the equivalent
gtkmm code. If possible I could also help in doing anything necessary
or automating the whole process document generation.

Documentation *is* largely generated, and usually people complain about that instead because the generation (A) is inherently limited because not every C concept can be 100% accurately transformed to a C++ wrapping mechanistically and/or (B) said automation doesn't have all the features that it in theory could (but which I don't see Merge Requests for! ...yes, including from myself.)

I presume you've seen the gtkmm tutorial (in the gtkmm-documentation project). If there are specific things you are frustrated with, then you can submit an Issue or - better - Merge Request on GitLab to request or add examples for that. Otherwise, it's unclear what you want fixed, or where you think *more* automation could help (rather than hinder), so general frustrations don't really provide an indication of what could be improved.



_______________________________________________
gtkmm-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: API-Reference is missing

Gtkmm mailing list
On 2019-02-14 10:39, Daniel Boles via gtkmm-list wrote:
Btw, if anyone in this latest thread doesn't know yet, you can substitute 3.20 into the URLs for documentation pointing at 3.22/3.24/stable and usually set something that's *almost* relevant, although 3.20 is increasingly old.

Failing that, hopefully your package manage installed the documentation into /usr/share/doc alongside the main package, or has a separate doc package available.

Third possibility: Download a tarball (.tar.xz file) from https://download.gnome.org/sources/, expand it, and read the documentation, starting at docs/reference/html/index.html.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 04:23, Compro Prasad via gtkmm-list <[hidden email]> wrote:
I am also frustrated with the documentation available for gtkmm. I
have to instead look into gtk docs and try to guess the equivalent
gtkmm code. If possible I could also help in doing anything necessary
or automating the whole process document generation.

Documentation *is* largely generated, and usually people complain about that instead because the generation (A) is inherently limited because not every C concept can be 100% accurately transformed to a C++ wrapping mechanistically and/or (B) said automation doesn't have all the features that it in theory could (but which I don't see Merge Requests for! ...yes, including from myself.)

I presume you've seen the gtkmm tutorial (in the gtkmm-documentation project). If there are specific things you are frustrated with, then you can submit an Issue or - better - Merge Request on GitLab to request or add examples for that. Otherwise, it's unclear what you want fixed, or where you think *more* automation could help (rather than hinder), so general frustrations don't really provide an indication of what could be improved.


_______________________________________________
gtkmm-list mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list