Re: Graphics objects documentation

[Ben Abbott]

On Sep 25, 2014, at 7:51 AM, Pantxo Diribarne <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> The current documentation for graphics objects is sparse and inhomogeneous. 
> M. Godfrey has already started tidying things up but, as he suggests,  it 
> would certainly be preferable to automate the doc generation for a few 
> reasons:
> * Having properties match between doc and octave interpreter
> * Homogenize the way we document default values, valid values ...
> * Have (as much as possible) common descriptions for properties that are 
> shared by all objects (e.g. type, tag, ...)
> 
> In order to make a first step I wrote an octave function that pretty much 
> does the above mentioned tasks, plus add an @anchor for each item so that we 
> can do cross referencing. 
> 
> Now the questions are:
> * Do people think that this automation process is really worth,
> * Is it acceptable to do this with octave?  If so, are there examples of .txi 
> files generated  by octave scripts somewhere in the doc (I am interested in 
> Makefile.in rules examples)?
> 
> Pantxo

I like the idea.

Many figures are already produces vias scripts.  The doc-strings from the 
m-files are also grabbed and placed into the documentation.

For this task, I'd write a script to produced an entire section for the manual 
and then use "input" or "include" to place it where it should go.

Ben