[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#25461: [Patch]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@".
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
bug#25461: [Patch]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@". |
Date: |
Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:56:51 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) |
Hello, Michael.
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 03:26:06 +0100, Michael Heerdegen wrote:
> Hello Alan,
[ .... ]
> I don't want that we change the docs to the worse.
I somehow don't think you'll be happy with any modifications I make to
the proposed doc strings which leaves their basic structure unchanged.
How about starting on a different tack. Would you accept , and ,@
having doc strings, with the entirety of these being:
[for ,]:
See ``' (and also `pcase') for the details of `,'.
[for ,@]:
See ``' for the details of `,@'.
?
[ .... ]
> It [ , ] is implicitly given a meaning by the implementation of "`".
> That's why it's documented in the documentation of "`". For the same
> reason that there is no separate documentation for :group just because
> it has a meaning in defcustom, or there is no mentioning in the
> docstring that the symbol `error' has a different meaning as car of a
> list that is an error handler in condition-case, or that car has a
> different meaning in (setf (car something) ...) or...
> All these examples appear in symbolic expressions (i.e. lists) that are
> not evaluated normally. Like in the tiny example above. If we try to
> mention what a symbol potentially could mean in any sexp that is not
> evaluated normally in this symbol's docstring, our documentation would
> become very messy, because lists that are not evaluated normally are
> very common in Lisp. That's why we normally collect this information in
> the documentation of the functions/macros that implement this meaning.
> This is not a problem because it's easy to look at the context and
> consult the documentation of the surrounding form.
, and ,@ are different: it is not obvious to the unexperienced what
"sexp" they belong to in something like
`(if ,cond (progn ,@body))
. How is a beginner supposed to connect up the ,@ in that example with
the ` which doesn't directly enclose or otherwise connect with it?
[ .... ]
(I'll address your points that I've snipped if they become relevant
again.)
> Regards,
> Michael.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- bug#25461: [Patch]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., (continued)
- bug#25461: [Patch]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., npostavs, 2017/01/18
- bug#25461: [Patch]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., Alan Mackenzie, 2017/01/19
- bug#25461: [Patch]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., Noam Postavsky, 2017/01/19
- bug#25461: [Patch]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., Alan Mackenzie, 2017/01/19
- bug#25461: [Patch]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., Michael Heerdegen, 2017/01/19
- bug#25461: [Patch]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., Michael Heerdegen, 2017/01/18
- bug#25461: [Patch]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., Alan Mackenzie, 2017/01/19
- bug#25461: [Patch]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., Michael Heerdegen, 2017/01/19
- bug#25461: [Patch]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., Alan Mackenzie, 2017/01/20
- bug#25461: [Patch]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., Michael Heerdegen, 2017/01/20
- bug#25461: [Patch]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@".,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- bug#25461: [Patch #2]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., Alan Mackenzie, 2017/01/21
- bug#25461: [Patch #2]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., Michael Heerdegen, 2017/01/23
- bug#25461: [Patch #2]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., Alan Mackenzie, 2017/01/24
- bug#25461: [Patch #2]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., npostavs, 2017/01/23
- bug#25461: [Patch #2]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., Alan Mackenzie, 2017/01/24
- bug#25461: [Patch #2]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., Noam Postavsky, 2017/01/24
- bug#25461: [Patch]: Missing doc strings for "," and ",@"., Alan Mackenzie, 2017/01/23