Re: Scheme file docstring format

[Michael Livshin]

thi <address@hidden> writes:

>    From: Neil Jerram <address@hidden>
>    Date: 17 Feb 2001 09:53:37 +0000
> 
>    Also, when the REPL is operating outside the module in question,
>    normal name visibility stuff will (or can be fixed to :-) hide the
>    docstrings of non-exported definitions.  If you then step into the
>    module, non-exported names and their docstrings should then be
>    visible.
> 
> this is reasonable.  then, the requirement becomes: docstring snarfing
> should preserve export status of the definition (so that presentation
> filters can do their job).

er.  what was the point of moving the docstrings into the comments,
again?

I'd rather we figured out a way to fix the normal docstrings, instead
of duplicating the module system logic in snarfer scripts etc.

the "documentation is part of the code" property of Lispy languages
was always one of my favourite features.  let's not through it out
just because we think that docstrings take memory, and what were the
other objections?

> since there is already planned facility for meta info,

what are you alluding to?

> if docstrings are stored/accessed using the same mechanisms to resolve
> module references, maybe the `define-module' form and the value of
> applying `module-public-interface' should be considered food for the
> snarfer as well.

my oh my.

--mike

-- 
Don't trust these UNIX people.  They are all demons.  They kill their
parents and fork children.  I don't know how they could do this with
their balls cut off but they manage.                        -- anonymous