Re: Scheme file docstring format

[Neil Jerram]

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Livshin <address@hidden> writes:

    Michael> I don't see a big difference wrt internationalization.

I don't think there are _big_ differences to be found anywhere here.
How can there be?, when all we are talking about is the difference
between

;; arfle barfle gloop
(define (fraz bar)                       [1]
  ...)

and

(define (fraz bar)
  "arfle barfle gloop"                   [2]
  ...)

For me, however, [1] somehow _feels_ more i18n-friendly.  It suggests
a _looser_ association than [2] between code and docstring, and this
looseness suggests a space into which i18n/l10n can fit.  So, IMO, [1]
invites people to believe in the translation mechanism - and therefore
go to the trouble of translating the docstrings! - more than [2] does.

(Oh dear; bye, bye, credibility.)

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

Sorry!  I just meant the memory required to store the docstrings as
part of loaded code.

    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.

    Michael> ah, OK, probably my misunderstanding.

Well, I may have missed something here, and I would like to understand
what thi was suggesting.

    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?

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

Of course.  I wanted to check that you meant that the `favourite
feature' is that the language/environment permits you to type `(help
acons)', or to click on an identifier and type `C-h f'.  Not that the
source code looks like [2] rather than [1].

Best regards,

        Neil