[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: docstring work

From: Dirk Herrmann
Subject: Re: docstring work
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:19:31 +0100 (MET)

On 10 Feb 2001, Neil Jerram wrote:

> 1. It would be nice to extend the C snarfing macros to cover things
> other than primitive procedures, e.g. macros, symbols, hooks and
> concepts.

Keisuke has already prepared a proposal that extends the set of snarfing
macros to cover symbols and other stuff.  I don't remember if macros,
hooks and concepts were part of it, but the naming scheme was quite
generic and designed to be extensible for additional snarfing needs.
Maybe the proposal could be put up to glug?

> 2. Currently the only snarfed docstrings come from the C code for
> libguile.  Documentation for Scheme-defined procedures is extracted
> from the lambda body, where the first expression of the lambda body is
> a string.
> I think we should also support snarfing docstrings from Scheme module
> files.  Instead of:  [...]
> we would use a format like:
> ;;; Removes bindings in @var{module} which are inherited from the
> ;;; (guile) module.
> (define (purify-module! module)
>   ...)

That's a good suggestion.  The memory overhead for the documentation
strings has always bothered me.  (Well, mentally :-)  I never ran into
memory problems because of docstrings, but I'd like guile to have as small
a memory footprint as possible.)

> 3. [...]
> 4. [...]
> 5. [...]

Agreed.  Agreed.  Agreed :-)

Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann

reply via email to

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