Re: snarfing docstrings in c extensions

[Samuel Barreto]

> On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 08:59:32PM +0200, Samuel Barreto wrote:
>
>> So I do am able to generate the info files that I want. My two problems
>> are:
>>
>> 1. how to use guile-snarf-docs portably ? (I have hardcoded them in my
>>    Makefile for now.)
>
> Since they don't get installed, it is hard to know the most robust method.
> They are used as internal tools to Guile.
>
>> ...
>
>> And from a broader perspective, is it the way it is supposed to work ? I
>> mean, am I doing it the right way or are other "guile-extension-writers"
>> doing it otherwise ?
>
> That is the way it is supposed to work.  But, I stopped doing it that way.
> I had the same sort of problems you are having now.
>
> Instead, I started writing scheme wrappers around my C functions. In C,
> let's say I had a library with a function named %foo.  In scheme, I would
> make a procedure
>
> (define (foo x)
>   "docstring"
>   (%foo x))
>
> It is a lot of wasted effort that way, but, it is easier to understand
> for me.  I'm not sure I should recommend it, tho.
>
> -Mike Gran

Thanks for your answer, I was having the feeling that defining scheme
wrappers was the way to go. I agree that it is a lot of wasted effort,
but then a lot of boilerplate code can be written in scheme that way
(taking care of arguments validity, simpler docstrings, stuffs like
that) !

Thanks again !
sam