[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Scheme file docstring format
From: |
Neil Jerram |
Subject: |
Re: Scheme file docstring format |
Date: |
19 Feb 2001 22:43:12 +0000 |
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Livshin <address@hidden> writes:
Michael> I don't see a big difference wrt internationalization.
I don't think there are _big_ differences to be found anywhere here.
How can there be?, when all we are talking about is the difference
between
;; arfle barfle gloop
(define (fraz bar) [1]
...)
and
(define (fraz bar)
"arfle barfle gloop" [2]
...)
For me, however, [1] somehow _feels_ more i18n-friendly. It suggests
a _looser_ association than [2] between code and docstring, and this
looseness suggests a space into which i18n/l10n can fit. So, IMO, [1]
invites people to believe in the translation mechanism - and therefore
go to the trouble of translating the docstrings! - more than [2] does.
(Oh dear; bye, bye, credibility.)
Michael> as for occupancy, the two definition of the word that
Michael> dict.org turned up for me don't seem to fit, so I'll ask:
Michael> what do you mean? the fact that docstrings squeeze
Michael> between the function header and it's body and make it
Michael> hard to see them together?
Sorry! I just meant the memory required to store the docstrings as
part of loaded code.
Michael> I'd rather we figured out a way to fix the normal
Michael> docstrings, instead of duplicating the module system
Michael> logic in snarfer scripts etc.
>> As I've said elsewhere, I don't understand why we need to
>> duplicate any module system logic in snarfer scripts.
Michael> ah, OK, probably my misunderstanding.
Well, I may have missed something here, and I would like to understand
what thi was suggesting.
Michael> the "documentation is part of the code" property of Lispy
Michael> languages was always one of my favourite features.
>> Do you really mean as a language feature, or as a feature of
>> the development environment?
Michael> where do you draw the boundary? wouldn't you like the
Michael> "environment" part to be programmable, after you have
Michael> drawn the boundary?
Of course. I wanted to check that you meant that the `favourite
feature' is that the language/environment permits you to type `(help
acons)', or to click on an identifier and type `C-h f'. Not that the
source code looks like [2] rather than [1].
Best regards,
Neil
- Re: Scheme file docstring format, (continued)
- Re: Scheme file docstring format, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/22
- Re: Scheme file docstring format, thi, 2001/02/18
- Re: Scheme file docstring format, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/18
- Re: Scheme file docstring format, Neil Jerram, 2001/02/18
- Re: Scheme file docstring format, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/19
- Re: Scheme file docstring format,
Neil Jerram <=
- Re: Scheme file docstring format, Carl R. Witty, 2001/02/20
- Re: Scheme file docstring format, Neil Jerram, 2001/02/20
- Re: Scheme file docstring format, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/21
- Re: Scheme file docstring format, Martin Grabmueller, 2001/02/21
- Re: Scheme file docstring format, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/21
Re: Scheme file docstring format, Neil Jerram, 2001/02/18