[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: how authors of add-on modules can package documentation
From: |
Neil Jerram |
Subject: |
Re: how authors of add-on modules can package documentation |
Date: |
17 Mar 2002 23:35:17 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 |
>>>>> "Evan" == Evan Prodromou <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>> "NWVD" == Neil W Van Dyke <address@hidden> writes:
NWVD> If anyone is thinking about different ways that authors of
NWVD> reusable Guile add-on modules can document their code, we
NWVD> should compare notes.
Evan> So, as a module author, I have been thinking about this quite a bit
Evan> myself. I really, really think that there should be a "standard" way
Evan> to write documentation for Guile, embedded into the code, as javadoc
Evan> is for Java, or pod for Perl, or other stuff for other languages.
I haven't yet read your ideas carefully, but you might like to note
that there were a couple of mailing list threads in this area back in
February 2001:
- subject "docstring work" beginning at
http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/guile-devel/2001-February/001001.html
- subject "Documentation" beginning at
http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/guile-devel/2001-February/001154.html
I believe the consensus at the end of those threads preferred docs as
strings rather than as comments; i.e.
(define (xxx arg)
"Do something"
...)
rather than
;;; Do something
(define (xxx arg)
...)
Oh, and don't forget i18n!
Neil