[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Patchy email

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Patchy email
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 11:23:30 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (gnu/linux)

Marc Hohl <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 28.07.2012 14:08, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> [...]
>> One thing that occured to me is that this contains a whole lot of public
>> functions without any DOC string.  No idea whether this might cause a
>> problem for the documentation run, but it certainly is not much of a
>> help for humans understanding the code.
> Good point. Since the current state is an intermediate one
> (well, kind of), I'll cover the doc strings in part 2 if that'll be ok.

I think there were no documentation strings before, and I don't think
that they would be extracted into user-readable documentations anyway,
which is a step backwards when the C implementation has them.

We'll need to think about that at some point of time in general.

I would still strongly suggest that the documentation strings are
maintained when stuff gets ported to Scheme: we'll likely make use of
them at some point of time, and they still help when actually reading
the code.

Now if I remember correctly, you diligently maintained every existing
documentation string (namely, none).  So we are not worse off than
before, and there is no point postponing matters on this front.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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