[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: SLAYER announcement and help request for preparing a GNU package

From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: Re: SLAYER announcement and help request for preparing a GNU package
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 23:56:48 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.130005 (Ma Gnus v0.5) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)

Thien-Thi Nguyen <address@hidden> skribis:

> At present, there is a protocol between the repl and the database of
> docstrings (guile-procedures.txt) only, and only for libguile(?).  And
> those laboriously maintained docstrings do not make it into the manual,
> either, by dint of the mindset.  If that were to change, i think it
> would be a SMOP to arrange to significantly improve the status of Guile
> documentation.  (Maybe that has already happened, but i missed it?)

For the record, AFAIK, docstrings from libguile are in sync with the
manual currently.  By that I mean that they are identical most of the
time (I agree there are good reasons why they would/should differ in
some cases, though.)


>    And besides, how do the aforementioned modules (those are, as I
>    reckon, tsar and c-tsar) refer to guile-snarf-docs that is shipped
>    with guile source?
> They don't.  The script guile-snarf-docs is not installed, and thus not
> available to third parties

I used a different approach in GnuTLS and other projects: it had a doc
snarfer comparable to guile-snarf-docs, but written in Scheme (see
and related files.)

That said, one of the benefits of using the FFI is that docstrings are
no problem...


reply via email to

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