Re: Scheme file docstring format

[Michael Livshin]

Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

> >>>>> "Michael" == Michael Livshin <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>     Michael> er.  what was the point of moving the docstrings into the
>     Michael> comments, again?
> 
> I think that the biggest reasons are internationalization and
> occupancy.

I don't see a big difference wrt internationalization.

as for occupancy, the two definition of the word that dict.org turned
up for me don't seem to fit, so I'll ask: what do you mean?  the fact
that docstrings squeeze between the function header and it's body and
make it hard to see them together?

>     Michael> I'd rather we figured out a way to fix the normal
>     Michael> docstrings, instead of duplicating the module system
>     Michael> logic in snarfer scripts etc.
> 
> As I've said elsewhere, I don't understand why we need to duplicate
> any module system logic in snarfer scripts.

ah, OK, probably my misunderstanding.

>     Michael> the "documentation is part of the code" property of Lispy
>     Michael> languages was always one of my favourite features.
> 
> Do you really mean as a language feature, or as a feature of the
> development environment?

where do you draw the boundary?  wouldn't you like the "environment"
part to be programmable, after you have drawn the boundary?

-- 
You question the worthiness of my code? I should kill you where you
stand!
                                        -- Klingon Programmer