Re: pushed to master: extensibility to (ice-9 session)

[Andy Wingo]

Hi Neil,

On Tue 27 Jan 2009 23:10, Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

> I have no objection to that.
>
>> (Perhaps we can set up a list for patches that get pushed to Guile ?)
>
> Not sure I understand...  Anything like guile-sources, which we
> already have?

I mean to say, a list that gets a mail whenever something is pushed to
master, automatically -- for reviewing each other's commits, and knowing
what's going on. (I appreciate the detailed review :)

>>    :use-module (ice-9 rdelim)
>> -  :export (help apropos apropos-internal apropos-fold
>> -       apropos-fold-accessible apropos-fold-exported apropos-fold-all
>> -       source arity system-module))
>> +  :export (help
>> +           add-value-help-handler! remove-value-help-handler!
>> +           add-name-help-handler! remove-name-help-handler!
>> +           apropos apropos-internal apropos-fold apropos-fold-accessible
>> +           apropos-fold-exported apropos-fold-all source arity
>> +           system-module module-commentary))
>
> Also say something in the commit about exporting module-commentary ?

Ah, that would have been good, yes. (Of course even better would be
documentation, but I don't have time to fix that one right now.)

>> +The return value of `proc' is as specified in
>> +`add-value-help-handler!'."
>
> I'd prefer to repeat what it said in add-value-help-handler!, so that
> this doc stands alone.

Ok, done.

>> +See the documentation for `add-name-help-handler' for more
>> +information."
>
> What is the point of that last sentence?  I suspect nothing, so
> recommend removing it.  (And same for remove-value-help-handler!)

Done

>> +                   (cond ((try-value-help (cadr name) value)
>> +                          => noop)
>
> Why noop here?  Won't that discard the documentation?

    `noop' is a primitive procedure in the (guile) module.

     -- Scheme Procedure: noop . args
         Do nothing.  When called without arguments, return `#f', otherwise
         return the first argument.

Agreed that it's unclear, I'll change to be more idiomatic.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/