[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] Add implementation of SRFI 27

From: Andreas Rottmann
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add implementation of SRFI 27
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 00:04:53 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:

> 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
> appreciated.
OK, I'll see what I can do.

Regards, Rotty
Andreas Rottmann -- <>

reply via email to

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