Re: PEAR Quality (vs. Quantity) RFC

Alexander Merz wrote:

Wolfram Kriesing wrote:

* i would suggest that examples should be required (but that is actually not part of this RFC, see first note, above). What the user finally does is programming and an example is always something that is quick to look at and mostly easy to understand.

Agree, but we should differ between "example" and "some lines of code using the package". We should define some outlines about the meaning of 'example'. Suggestions: - show intented usage of the package - is documented in source (not phpdoc)

that would be great, and should be the way to go, but that needs interaction by a human being. But in order to automatically check the examples, we might additionally need some other kind of standard definitions. For example we could parse the code and look for seeing if one example file uses at least 50% of the public methods defined by this package (but that still seems difficulty and too vague). Any cool ideas? Additionally i just want to remind, that the actual RFC mail contained this: The number of examples (number of files?) should depend on the size of the package. The bigger (LOC's or number of public methods) the package, the more examples should exist. Since the size of the API/LOC also (kind of) tells how complex the package is and how hard it is to use it. -- Wolfram ... opensource @ vision:produktion ... http://opensource.visionp.de ... translating template engine .... http://sf.net/projects/simpletpl ... authentication system .... http://sf.net/projects/auth