[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] hahn/salmonella issues

From: lundi
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] hahn/salmonella issues
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 16:09:25 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0

To answer my own question regarding possible alternatives to hahn: I found that simply writing documentation to source with a special comment prefix and then extracting that with some shell voodoo will be closest to what I want.

My main gripe with hahn is that IDEs will commonly not recognize the @() docstrings as such, so they will cause a lot of visual clutter in the source. So instead I'll just extract comments starting with a triple semicolon and write those to a wiki file.

$ cat file.scm | sed 's/^[ \t]+//' | grep -e "^;;;" | cut -b 5- >

I considered writing documenting comments in Markdown and then pipe those through markdown-svnwiki, but I feel like there's little benefit over just writing comments directly in svnwiki syntax.

Obviously there's a lot of room for improvement here. For instance it would be great to have a way of automatically converting procedure definitions into <procedure>(fn args) blocks. Also, support for multi-line comments and extracting info from .meta files would be nice to have.

Would anybody be interested in having an egg that provides this sort of functionality? I'm under the impression that hardly anybody uses hahn so I imagine nobody would use this either.

Best wishes,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]