gnupic: Thread: [gnupic] gpsim, documentation

Looking from out, I see that there are certain things a bit as to the
carelessness in my opinion it would be very beneficial has a graph of
flows of the gpsim of way that all the participants have a very
nearby idea of since as,like the blocks of the gpsim work ... not if
UML or a conventional graph of flows or both, also would be good to be
able to comment well the code, I believe that it is the key in order
that many people could take part in the development of this great simulator
and at the same time to find mas easily the bugs difficult to rake.
Only it is my opinion and by no means it is to remove value to the
great made work till now, but my desires would be people see great
taking part in the development of gpsim, up to me itself ... though
my knowledges of C belong to a novice.

Regards

Néstor A. Marchesini
Chajari-Entre Rios-Argentina
ICQ # 50983752 colo
MSN ####@####.####
####@####.####
####@####.####
http://www.deselectronica.com.ar

PD:I do the translation from http://www.elmundo.es/traductor

Nestor A. Marchesini wrote:
> Looking from out, I see that there are certain things a bit as to the
> carelessness in my opinion it would be very beneficial has a graph of
> flows of the gpsim of way that all the participants have a very
> nearby idea of since as,like the blocks of the gpsim work ... not if
> UML or a conventional graph of flows or both, also would be good to be
> able to comment well the code, I believe that it is the key in order
> that many people could take part in the development of this great simulator
> and at the same time to find mas easily the bugs difficult to rake.
> Only it is my opinion and by no means it is to remove value to the
> great made work till now, but my desires would be people see great
> taking part in the development of gpsim, up to me itself ... though
> my knowledges of C belong to a novice.

Nestor,

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. (I think something got 
lost in the translation!). But if I have to guess, I think you're 
suggesting that if gpsim had documentation describing the software 
design that it would be easier for others to contribute to the project. 
This is undoubtedly true. Unfortunately, I have not made any developer 
documentation and it is not high on my list of priorities. I have 
experimented time to time with doxygen. In fact, at one point I even 
attempted to write some of the class comments in a form that doxygen can 
intelligently parse. You can try experimenting with this if you like. 
It's especially enlightening to see the massive class hierarchy! 
However, to be useful someone needs to go through and document each 
member function of every class.

Another useful piece of documentation would be something to give a high 
level overview of the code flow. I did write something like this a very 
long time ago and placed it in the back of gpsim's user guide. This 
could stand to be revisited and improved upon, but maybe it's enough to 
get you going for now.

Oh, patches don't only have to be for code... Feel free to submit a 
documentation patch too!

Scott

Excuseme for not answering in time, I was low the effects of the flu.
Now that I read well the translation of what I wrote ... there is some
inconsistencies but you to caught totally what it he wanted to say.
With regard to the doxygen it is fantastic, I did not know that anything 
like
that existed, I have downloaded it with urpmi and am experiencing it close
to the Kdevelop.
Well, I will see that it is what I achieve hereabouts and if I can 
contribute something to gpsim.
For the present I have compiled and using successfully gpsim-0.21.11, but
I do not manage to compile the version downloaded from the svn.
Which are the steps to continuing after coming out from the svn?

Regards and thanks.

Néstor A. Marchesini
Chajari-Entre Rios-Argentina
ICQ # 50983752 colo
MSN ####@####.####
####@####.####
####@####.####
http://www.deselectronica.com.ar

Scott Dattalo escribió:

> Nestor,
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. (I think something got 
> lost in the translation!). But if I have to guess, I think you're 
> suggesting that if gpsim had documentation describing the software 
> design that it would be easier for others to contribute to the 
> project. This is undoubtedly true. Unfortunately, I have not made any 
> developer documentation and it is not high on my list of priorities. I 
> have experimented time to time with doxygen. In fact, at one point I 
> even attempted to write some of the class comments in a form that 
> doxygen can intelligently parse. You can try experimenting with this 
> if you like. It's especially enlightening to see the massive class 
> hierarchy! However, to be useful someone needs to go through and 
> document each member function of every class.
>
> Another useful piece of documentation would be something to give a 
> high level overview of the code flow. I did write something like this 
> a very long time ago and placed it in the back of gpsim's user guide. 
> This could stand to be revisited and improved upon, but maybe it's 
> enough to get you going for now.
>
> Oh, patches don't only have to be for code... Feel free to submit a 
> documentation patch too!
>
> Scott

On 5/29/06, Nestor A. Marchesini ####@####.#### wrote:
> For the present I have compiled and using successfully gpsim-0.21.11, but
> I do not manage to compile the version downloaded from the svn.
> Which are the steps to continuing after coming out from the svn?

http://www.dattalo.com/gnupic/gpsim_cvs.html
The first time:

$ libtoolize
$ aclocal (or aclocal-1.9 if you are Debian user)
$ autoheader
$ automake --add-missing (or use automake-1.9 is you are Debian user)
$ autoconf
$ ./configure
$ make
$ su root (or use "sudo make install" if you are Ubuntu user)
# make install
# exit

The subsequent times:
$ automake (?? not so sure here but this is the answer from Scott last time)
$ ./configure
$ make
$ su root
# make install
# exit

Regards,
Xiaofan

Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> The subsequent times:
> $ automake (?? not so sure here but this is the answer from Scott last 
> time)

This extra automake step is only necessary if a new file has been added.

> $ ./configure
> $ make
> $ su root
> # make install
> # exit

Scott

Thank you Xiaofan and Scott.

Happily I could compile the version: 0.21.12-pre of the gpsim downloaded
from the svn the problem was that I did not have the bison installed and
the make was giving mistakes, I solved it with:

urpmi --noclean bison
urpmi --noclean bison++

Regards

Néstor A. Marchesini
Chajari-Entre Rios-Argentina
ICQ # 50983752 colo
MSN ####@####.####
####@####.####
####@####.####
http://www.deselectronica.com.ar

Xiaofan Chen escribió:

> On 5/29/06, Nestor A. Marchesini ####@####.#### wrote:
>
>> For the present I have compiled and using successfully gpsim-0.21.11, 
>> but
>> I do not manage to compile the version downloaded from the svn.
>> Which are the steps to continuing after coming out from the svn?
>
>
> http://www.dattalo.com/gnupic/gpsim_cvs.html
> The first time:
>
> $ libtoolize
> $ aclocal (or aclocal-1.9 if you are Debian user)
> $ autoheader
> $ automake --add-missing (or use automake-1.9 is you are Debian user)
> $ autoconf
> $ ./configure
> $ make
> $ su root (or use "sudo make install" if you are Ubuntu user)
> # make install
> # exit
>
> The subsequent times:
> $ automake (?? not so sure here but this is the answer from Scott last 
> time)
> $ ./configure
> $ make
> $ su root
> # make install
> # exit
>
> Regards,
> Xiaofan