[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Scheme file docstring format
From: |
thi |
Subject: |
Re: Scheme file docstring format |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:17:59 -0800 |
From: Michael Livshin <address@hidden>
Date: 18 Feb 2001 13:20:14 +0200
I'd rather we figured out a way to fix the normal docstrings, instead
of duplicating the module system logic in snarfer scripts etc.
the "documentation is part of the code" property of Lispy languages
was always one of my favourite features. let's not through it out
just because we think that docstrings take memory, and what were the
other objections?
why not have snarfing understand both docstrings and stylized comments?
> since there is already planned facility for meta info,
what are you alluding to?
sorry i was not clear. i was referring to the idea of ";;-meta: info"
style comments (note the "-" after the semicolons).
> if docstrings are stored/accessed using the same mechanisms to
> resolve module references, maybe the `define-module' form and the
> value of applying `module-public-interface' should be considered
> food for the snarfer as well.
my oh my.
this sounds scary, but basically, i'm advocating tight integration
between docstring, help system, and snarfing "association" methods
(i.e., those algorithms that, given a name (or object), traverse some
backend to return documentation). it seems these have very similar
goals and behaviors, so they might be able to share implementation.
thi
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: Scheme file docstring format,
thi <=