Mirrors/clap
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/clap-rs/clap synced 2024-12-13 22:32:33 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity
clap/examples/tutorial_derive/04_01_enum.md

48 lines
962 B
Markdown
Raw Normal View History

docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
```console
test(tutorial): Ensure we actually test code Biggest problem identified is that we are incorrectly setting the help usage in `04_04_custom`
2022-08-08 19:05:08 +00:00
$ 04_01_enum_derive --help
docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
A simple to use, efficient, and full-featured Command Line Argument Parser
fix(help): Collapse usage to one line After looking at more examples, I've become more attached to this briefer format. Part of #4132
2022-09-07 16:03:55 +00:00
Usage: 04_01_enum_derive[EXE] <MODE>
docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
docs(derive): Add help text
2022-10-04 12:32:49 +00:00
Arguments:
<MODE>
What mode to run the program in
Possible values:
- fast: Run swiftly
- slow: Crawl slowly but steadily
Options:
-h, --help
fix(help): Remove extraneous text from built-ins This is an intermediate solution for #4408. As there were no agreeed upon goals, I went with what I felt read well and that I saw commonly used on non-clap commands. - "information" isn't really a necessary word. - I originally favored `Print this help` but realied that doesn't read correctly in completions. - Besides being shorter, the reason for the flipped short/long hint is it gives people the context they need for scanning, emphasizing "summary" and "more". Fixes #4409
2023-01-03 16:49:43 +00:00
Print help (see a summary with '-h')
docs(derive): Add help text
2022-10-04 12:32:49 +00:00
-V, --version
fix(help): Remove extraneous text from built-ins This is an intermediate solution for #4408. As there were no agreeed upon goals, I went with what I felt read well and that I saw commonly used on non-clap commands. - "information" isn't really a necessary word. - I originally favored `Print this help` but realied that doesn't read correctly in completions. - Besides being shorter, the reason for the flipped short/long hint is it gives people the context they need for scanning, emphasizing "summary" and "more". Fixes #4409
2023-01-03 16:49:43 +00:00
Print version
docs(derive): Add help text
2022-10-04 12:32:49 +00:00
$ 04_01_enum_derive -h
A simple to use, efficient, and full-featured Command Line Argument Parser
Usage: 04_01_enum_derive[EXE] <MODE>
fix(help): Don't rely on ALL CAPS for headers I see them fulfilling two roles - A form of bolding - As a callback to their placeholder in usage However, it is a bit of an unpolished look and no other CLI seems to do it. This looks a bit more proefessional. We have colored help for formatting and I think the sections relation to usage will be clear enough.
2022-08-26 14:40:23 +00:00
Arguments:
fix(help): Make output more dense In looking at other help output, I noticed that they use two spaces, in place of clap's 4, and it doesn't suffer from legibility. If it doesn't make the output worse, let's go ahead and make it as dense so we fit more content on the screen. This is a part of #4132
2022-09-07 20:29:15 +00:00
<MODE> What mode to run the program in [possible values: fast, slow]
docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
fix(help): Don't rely on ALL CAPS for headers I see them fulfilling two roles - A form of bolding - As a callback to their placeholder in usage However, it is a bit of an unpolished look and no other CLI seems to do it. This looks a bit more proefessional. We have colored help for formatting and I think the sections relation to usage will be clear enough.
2022-08-26 14:40:23 +00:00
Options:
fix(help): Remove extraneous text from built-ins This is an intermediate solution for #4408. As there were no agreeed upon goals, I went with what I felt read well and that I saw commonly used on non-clap commands. - "information" isn't really a necessary word. - I originally favored `Print this help` but realied that doesn't read correctly in completions. - Besides being shorter, the reason for the flipped short/long hint is it gives people the context they need for scanning, emphasizing "summary" and "more". Fixes #4409
2023-01-03 16:49:43 +00:00
-h, --help Print help (see more with '--help')
-V, --version Print version
docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
test(tutorial): Ensure we actually test code Biggest problem identified is that we are incorrectly setting the help usage in `04_04_custom`
2022-08-08 19:05:08 +00:00
$ 04_01_enum_derive fast
docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
Hare
test(tutorial): Ensure we actually test code Biggest problem identified is that we are incorrectly setting the help usage in `04_04_custom`
2022-08-08 19:05:08 +00:00
$ 04_01_enum_derive slow
docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
Tortoise
test(tutorial): Ensure we actually test code Biggest problem identified is that we are incorrectly setting the help usage in `04_04_custom`
2022-08-08 19:05:08 +00:00
$ 04_01_enum_derive medium
docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
? failed
fix(error): Try to polish/clarify messages In text communication you need to balance - Scannability, putting the most important information upfront - Brevity so people don't get lost in the message - Softness to help ease people through a frustrating experience I feel we weren't doing great on the first two points, so tried to iterate on the messages to improve them. I hope we aren't suffering too much on the third point as a side effect.
2023-01-06 23:01:34 +00:00
error: invalid value 'medium' for '<MODE>'
fix(help): Make output more dense In looking at other help output, I noticed that they use two spaces, in place of clap's 4, and it doesn't suffer from legibility. If it doesn't make the output worse, let's go ahead and make it as dense so we fit more content on the screen. This is a part of #4132
2022-09-07 20:29:15 +00:00
[possible values: fast, slow]
docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
fix(error): Match rustc for giving more information
2023-01-03 19:22:35 +00:00
For more information, try '--help'.
docs: Move everything to docs.rs A couple of things happened when preparing to release 3.0 - We needed derive documentation - I had liked how serde handled theres - I had bad experiences finding things in structopt's documentation - The examples were broken and we needed tests - The examples seemed to follow a pattern of having tutorial content and cookbook content - We had been getting bug reports from people looking at master and thinking they were looking at what is currently released - We had gotten feedback to keep down the number of places that documentation was located From this, we went with a mix of docs.rs and github - We kept the number of content locations at 2 rather than 3 by not having an external site like serde - We rewrote the examples into explicit tutorials and cookbooks to align with the 4 styles of documentation - We could test our examples by running `console` code blocks with trycmd - Documentation was versioned and the README pointed to the last release This had downsides - The tutorials didn't have the code inlined - Users still had a hard time finding and navigating between the different forms of documentation - In practice, we were less likely to cross-link between the different types of documentation Moving to docs.rs would offer a lot of benefits, even if it is only designed for Rust-reference documentation and isn't good for Rust derive reference documentation, tutorials, cookbooks, etc. The big problem was keeping the examples tested to keep maintenance costs down. Maybe its just me but its easy to overlook - You can pull documentation from a file using `#[doc = "path"]` - Repeated doc attributes get concatenated rather than first or last writer winning Remember these when specifically thinking about Rust documentation made me realize that we could get everything into docs.rs. When doing this - Tutorial code got brought in as was one of the aims - We needed to split the lib documentation and the README to have all of the linking work. This allowed us to specialize them according to their rule (user vs contributor) - We needed to avoid users getting caught up in making a decision between Derive and Builder APIs so we put the focus on the derive API with links to the FAQ to help users decide when to use one or the other. - Improved cross-referencing between different parts of the documentation - Limited inline comments were added to example code - Introductory example code intentionally does not have teaching comments in it as its meant to give a flavor or sense of things and not meant to teach on its own. This is a first attempt. There will be a lot of room for further improvement. Current know downsides: - Content source is more split up for the tutorials This hopefully addresses #3189
2022-07-19 18:29:31 +00:00
```
Reference in a new issue Copy permalink