bounce: Re: Ideas for documentation system

[Matthew Flatt <mflatt@cs.utah.edu>]

   ----- Original message follows -----
From: Shriram Krishnamurthi <shriram@cs.rice.edu>
Reply-To: shriram@cs.rice.edu
To: plt-scheme@fast.cs.utah.edu
Subject: Re: Ideas for documentation system
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0001142235090.22942-100000@apal.ii.uib.no>
References: <14463.37993.783665.551441@sun.cs.rice.edu>
	<Pine.SOL.4.21.0001142235090.22942-100000@apal.ii.uib.no>
X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs  Lucid
Resent-To: plt-scheme@fast.cs.utah.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Stig Erik Sandoe wrote:

>		  Doesn't the new MzScheme specific objects contain
> any documentation strings, as structs, classes and generic functions
> do in CL?  

Nope.

>	     Is the idea of using the first object (if a string) in a
> lambda expr as documentation a taboo in Scheme circles?

Yep.

There is a separate syntax for specifying contracts on values.  See
the MrSpidey manual by typing "spidey" in Help Desk (you will have to
have installed MrSpidey first:
www.cs.rice.edu/CS/PLT/packages/mrspidey/).  These aren't checked at
run-time (for reasons that Matthias explained a few messages back),
but the MrSpidey tool will check them as part of its analysis.

Of course, these are contracts, which are more specific (and more
general, and more checkable!) than documentation strings.

'shriram

- --OAA25763.947886907/fast.cs.utah.edu--
------- end -------