[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] Add implementation of SRFI 27

From: Andy Wingo
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add implementation of SRFI 27
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:59:26 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)

On Fri 01 Oct 2010 11:02, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

>> A slightly related question: I'm preparing patches to add SRFI 42 and
>> 67. I don't know if I'll find the time and motivation to also provide a
>> texinfo version of their specifications (and, contrary to SRFI 27, these
>> would essentially be literal transcriptions).  Would patches which just
>> add links to the documents at into the manual
>> at the appropriate places be acceptable as well?
> Currently only SRFI-34 lacks documentation.  Personally I find it handy
> to have complete, user-oriented SRFI documentation in the manual, but I
> reckon that writing it is tedious.

Sure it's tedious. But it's totally necessary. Some days that's all I
do. No, it's not as fun as hacking. I think though, given that we all
have benefited from Guile's documentation, that we should not consider
features as being complete if they are not accompanied with proper
updates to the manual.

In the particular case of srfis, I would think that one could rig up an
htmlprag -> stexi translator, and thus get most of the way ;-) You could
start with the code in guile-gnome in (gnome gw support gtk-doc).

> Still, some sort of a transcription would be nice (though for SRFI-42,
> for example, the second part of the abstract and the rationale don’t
> belong in Guile’s manual), but having the code is nice too, so...

Yes, having code is good. But really, we need code *and*
documentation. It should only take a couple hours or so, and it's really


reply via email to

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