Re: [PATCH] Augmenting the doc of `define-module'

[Ludovic Courtès]

Kevin Ryde <address@hidden> writes:

> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>> address@hidden #:replace @var{list}
>> ...
>> +One example of this is @code{(srfi srfi-19)} which exports
>> address@hidden
>
> This isn't a great example.  See if you can make up something, to
> avoid confusing anyone about what srfi-19 actually does or doesn't do.

I knew you wouldn't like it.  ;-)

But, well, that really is an example, nothing more.  I could choose
whichever module that intentionally overrides a core binding and is
documented to do so.

Actually, I think that what we disagree on is the rationale behind
`#:replace'.  My guess (which I wrote in the doc and explained in the
thread about SRFI-34 and SRFI-60) is: `#:replace' is a way for the
module developer to provide a hint about intended and documented binding
replacements.

How would you document it?  Maybe we should ask Tom Lord about what his
intent was?

BTW, do you have other griefs against the patch?

Thanks,
Ludovic.