Re: How to document 'not implemented, sorta' stuff?

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 18:56, Philip Olson <philip@roshambo.org> wrote: > > On Jun 7, 2010, at 8:11 AM, G. T. Stresen-Reuter wrote: > >> On Jun 7, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Philip Olson wrote: >> >>> >>> There are several features in PHP that are "not implemented [yet]", including >>> roughly 13 DOM classes. Well, they are sorta (but not really) implemented. >>> >>> How should we deal with this? >> >> Just my 2¢ but if something is not (yet) implemented, it doesn't exist and thus >> shouldn't be referenced in any end-user documentation. >> >> I could never tell my clients about x functionality unless it is, well, functional! Doing >> otherwise could be interpreted as being less than honest. > > I mostly agree but the trouble is (as seen in the examples) this stuff is partially > implemented. So in the least we should mention them as reserved keywords (at least, the new > classes/methods). Or mention them in better detail somewhere, and offer alternatives (and/or allow > users to provide them via user comments). > > I'm not sure the best approach to handling these concerns but am afraid people think > "Oh, this is defined so  probably just isn't documented yet." which leads them down > a time wasting confusing path of testing them out. We could prevent that, somehow. > > And in the future I don't think "not implemented yet" should be allowed in > php-src. IMO it shouldn't and should be removed. -Hannes