documentation (was: default values)

[Robert Brenstein]

>
>This is ENUM - enumereted type as exists in C, C++, Java, ...

But it is not a standard type in those languages, is it? So it should 
be defined to avoid ambiguities and guessing.

>Okay, tell me please how you prefer to see explanation of
>     Vfield.Type property ?
>
>What type it have? Now is written EVFieldType. What you suggest ?
>Just write
>
>     Vfield.Type as integer ?
>
>This is not good.
>Write properties and parameters without types?
>Yes SCRIPT - LANGUAGE users are used to this, but this is not very good
>also.

Can you list specific definitions for field type in each environment 
(product). Just to see the actual differences in syntax. This will 
make this discussion more concrete.

My point about not using formal declarations but plain English has 
nothing to do with script languages. I am just not convinced that 
kernel doc can't be written in plain english and the syntax / formal 
declarations left for product docs (they are defined/used there 
anyway).

As aside: I don't think Transcript qualifies as a scripting language, 
although I give it is a matter of perspective. I happen to use 
Valentina with Transcript but I program or programmed in a variety of 
languages including C/C++, Pascal, Fortran, and a multitude of 
scripting languages, so the syntax you use does not scare me per se.

The point I was trying to make is that the declarations you give may 
provide some info but also introduce new problems, like your telling 
me to see something that does not exist as such or defining things 
using undefined terms. And they often obscure the clarity of 
presenting general concepts.

Robert