Re: [ns] ns Manual : For who?

[Tarik Alj <aljtarik@ozias.inrs-telecom.uquebec.ca>]

> That's exactly my point. There is no need to include huge pieces of code
> (maybe only cite the filename). In many places, there is a short
> description of some of the functions and how they are related ...see for
> example the section on TCP agents. However, other parts are not as
> organised.

I agree, since code gets outdated pretty fast sometimes. But you need some sort 
of core documentation, with pieces of code; at least on the fundamentals of ns, 
such as the interface with the interpreter and schedulers for example.


> 
> My point is that maybe it is time to slow done on the code expansion and
> nail down a good comprehensie documentation of the parts that are not
> dynamically changing every day. As an example, I think the description of
> the class hierarchy, the scheduler, the classifier...etc. require a
> lot of work. Also, inline documentation looks, in many cases, like notes
> written by the person who wrote the code, to be understood only by
> her/him, and nobody else. With minimal effort, more care can be taken to
> make comments more meaningful.

A lot of people contribute to ns, I think what you suggest would be hard to 
implement effectively.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hussein.
> 

Truth is some sections of the manual need to be updated... really!

Regards, 

Tarik.