your documentation is total crap.
It has several grammatical mistakes, uses _really_ unusual vocabulary, doesnt seem to have any strcture, jumps from informal crap[...]
Yup yup and yup. The problem is, it follows an structure. The thing is, the getting started guide is to tell people how things are meant to be. I can't throw a huge bunch of code at people and say "hey, learn it!".
This is why the informal "crap" is there, it is meant to tell you the naming conventions, memory conventions and all this stuff. Plus the global concept of Lite Foundation, how things work in general etc. pp.
This knowledge is supposed to give you an advantage, because it sets a default way for how things work and saves you from trips to the reference just to look what the function does or what kind of object it returns.
Its not really easy to explain all this stuff and looking at the rest of your post it looks like you didn't tried to understand it (or you just failed because of my grammar). I will try to write it better, and this is also why I asked for feedback (without, I can't improve it).
Returns the string and delegating its ownerhship to the caller.
! This forbidden as the function signals that it doesn't delegate the
! ownership to the caller!
delegate? ownership? What the...!!??
What the "ownership" is, is described in broad detail in the chapter before your quoted line. And I really hope that you don't count "delegate" to the unusual vocabulary, because it isn't unusual. In Deutschland würden wir übrigens "delegieren" dazu sagen.
"Es ist verboten die ownership an den caller zu delegieren weil der Funktionsname signalisiert das genau das nicht passiert."
Nevertheless I just dont know why to use it as it is now. I got to work with (visual) c++ anyway...also beacuse theres just no way to do a serious project in SED.
Yes, but it is possible do a serious project in LED. Beside that, I don't want you to use Lite Foundation just because I think its cool. If you like C++, C#, ObjC or whatever more than C, feel free to use it.
But I have discussed this already two times in this thread and a third time isn't needed. Just read my response to eg. ratchet, I have discussed it there and then letter in response to Uhrwerk again.
Also i dont get why someone who writes in C and needs classes would use LiteFoundation instead of C++ (or objective-c) as it seems to be pretty invasive not really worth the effort (but maybe thats just me)
Again, this has been already discussed two times here. Its not just the concept of classes that makes Lite Foundation what it is.
Something like a pre-compiler that lets you write C++ syntax (classes, inheritance and stuff...) and translates it into Lite-C would be cool...dunno if someone already did this or if its even possible - just an idea that might get some more feedback
Probably, but I hate C++ (yes, its that simple)
