Functions document not in sync w.r.t. private functions

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The AQL functions document doesn't reflect the work that was done by Raman and 
others, per the info-gathering/change-making exercise a few weeks ago, to 
correctly hide the private functions.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by dtab...@gmail.com on 6 Jun 2013 at 4:33

[GoogleCodeExporter]

@Ji Mahn: Can you take care of this issue?  Talk to Raman if needed. 

Original comment by che...@gmail.com on 6 Jun 2013 at 4:42

[GoogleCodeExporter]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/15_poPQqdUSb_jFZXEBvxJJrqKEcFF0cMkG3BUEv_QOc/
edit?usp=sharing

Original comment by dtab...@gmail.com on 6 Jun 2013 at 4:42

[GoogleCodeExporter]

@Mike: Could you give me a permission to modify the document? I can apply the 
current status of our "functions" page to the documentation.

@Chen: I can make synchronization for the current status of our "functions" 
page and the google document. But, frankly speaking, I don't think I can add 
descriptions for all the functions which mentioned in google document. 

Original comment by jimah...@gmail.com on 6 Jun 2013 at 6:45

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Jiemahn,

The functions document should be looked at as "read-only" - it was 
reviewed by three eyes in a long f2f meeting, and then by a 4th set of 
eyes as it was implemented in the system (Raman's work), and I wouldn't 
want it to be changed.  Is there a reason you'd need to change it?  (Not 
trying to be difficult - actually a little concerned about the concept. 
:-))  It would be fine for you to copy it and make a new document that 
captures whatever updates you want to make as you go through this 
spec-like file.

None of the private functions should be documented.  Are there a lot of 
undocumented public functions?  Hopefully not?

Original comment by dtab...@gmail.com on 6 Jun 2013 at 6:51

[GoogleCodeExporter]

And one more thing is that in the google document some functions are marked to 
be renamed but, as far as I tested, only the old function name (the name before 
renaming) works in current asterix.
For example, functions such as year(), month(), and day() are marked to rename 
as get-year(), get-month(), and get-day() in google document. But only the old 
name of the functions work in current asterix. I will contact Raman tomorrow 
and discuss about this issue.

Thank you.

Original comment by jimah...@gmail.com on 6 Jun 2013 at 7:01

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Ah!  Interesting.  JARod?  (You kind of owned this doc and these 
functions in particular; what's the story?  Raman owned the 
privatization task, I think.)

Original comment by dtab...@gmail.com on 6 Jun 2013 at 7:06

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I think this issue can be resolved if Ji Mahn can meet Raman Thursday F2F.

Original comment by che...@gmail.com on 6 Jun 2013 at 7:11

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Oh. I see, Mike.
The reason that I would like to have a permission to write on the doc is just 
to sync current status and the document. For example, if I remove the 
"string-equal" function from our page, I think the "d" sign on the document 
should be removed at the same time. 

I am not 100% sure whether I understand the document in a right way but, as far 
as I understand, all the black-fonted functions without "d" mark should be 
added on our page, right?

Original comment by jimah...@gmail.com on 6 Jun 2013 at 7:14

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Permission granted.  :-)
Maybe re-color the d's, though, or add another code - let's not change 
what we wrote there (just to be safe).
Yes, my recollection is that all the black non-(d)'ed functions should 
be doc'ed and implemented under their (new, if changes are indicated) names.
Those functions are in the minority, luckily....  :-)
Thanks for tackling this!
JARod is probably the best "consultant" for tomorrow, since he drove 
this compilation of info and the review mtg.

Original comment by dtab...@gmail.com on 6 Jun 2013 at 7:34

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Sorry for missing this thread. Back to this now.

- For the black non-(d)'ed functions: yes they are supposed to be exposed to 
the end user, so they should be documented.
- Non-renamed functions: I confirmed that some functions that should be renamed 
have sneaked from my change. I will update them. Thanks for pointing out that.

Original comment by jarod...@gmail.com on 6 Jun 2013 at 4:36

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Assigned to me to fix. Finally the code should be consistent with the function 
google doc.

Original comment by jarod...@gmail.com on 21 Jun 2013 at 9:36

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The changes on asterix codebase on syncing function visibility has been 
reviewed by Raman and merge into master branch.

Original comment by jarod...@gmail.com on 2 Aug 2013 at 3:05

• Changed state: Fixed