jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) (05/08/89)
In article <10101@claris.com> drc@claris.com (Dennis Cohen) writes: >[Re THINK Pascal manual] >I would tend to agree that the documentation is not as good as it might be, >the lack of OP information being the most glaring example, but it is much >better written and usable than the "reference" manuals that Apple produces. ... My worst complaint about both the C and Pascal manuals is that the indexes are lousy. I could (and would) have done a better job in 8 hours with Microsoft Word's clunky indexer. The last manual I've seen that was indexed that poorly was the owner's manual for the Compaq 286 ... Apparently, too, there was supposed to be a summary of the C library functions in each chapter in the C libraries guide, but it must have gotten mangled in the production process. In general, the documentation is readable, just not ... refined. I give it a B, maybe a B+. (I give them an A+ for their spine design, though!) As far as Object Pascal goes, I don't know whether it's still possible to obtain a copy of the Object Pascal Report. Not from APDA, anyway, unlessit is bundled with MacApp or something like that (I don't know). You can find a good description of the syntax and usage if you read "Object Oriented Programming for the Macintosh" (Hayden Books) or whatever the exact title is, although what you're buying there is about 10% Object Pascal, 50% MacApp, 40% other Mac-OOPL reference, and it's a little pricey to buy on a whim. -- v v sssss|| joseph hall || 201-1D Hampton Lee Court v v s s || jnh@ece-csc.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Cary, NC 27511 v sss || joseph@ece007.ncsu.edu (Try this one first) -----------|| Standard disclaimers and all that . . . . . . . . . . . . . .