Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation

[Graham Fawcett]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Kon Lovett <address@hidden> wrote:

>  > Some day, we might want to offer an alternate way of marking which
>  > procs should be indexed, or providing a formal exports list, like the
>  > (declare ) form but for interpreted files as well. That would cover
>  > the cases where automated indexing is intractable. But yes, 50% is a
>  > good target for a first attempt.
>
>  It should get 100% of the global symbols. What I can't do reliably is
>  get the define syntax forms. The expanded syntax that defines global
>  symbols though is caught.

Might it not turn up global symbols that weren't intended for public
visibility, though? Perhaps  well-designed eggs shouldn't do that, but
it could happen in the wild. (/me jumps to the egg repo to see how
well-designed his eggs are...)

Perhaps this isn't a problem, if the use-case is to provide a search
facility. But I think that preparing a good index might take more care
(as good indexes always do).

Graham

'Flattering to the author, insulting to the reader," she said.  "In a
hyphenated word," she said with the shrewd amiability of an expert,
"self-indulgent.  I'm always embarrassed when I see an index an
author has made of his own work.  It's a revealing thing... a shameless
exhibition....'
-- Claire Minton, in Vonnegut's 'Cat's Cradle',
on why one should never index one's own book. ;-)