bounce: Re: Ideas for documentation system

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

   ----- Original message follows -----
From: Matthias Felleisen <matthias@cs.rice.edu>
To: stig@ii.uib.no
CC: shriram@cs.rice.edu, noelw@dai.ed.ac.uk, plt-scheme@fast.cs.utah.edu
In-reply-to: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0001142235090.22942-100000@apal.ii.uib.no>
	(message from Stig Erik Sandoe on Fri, 14 Jan 2000 22:41:13 +0100
	(MET))
Subject: Re: Ideas for documentation system
Reply-to: matthias@rice.edu
References:  <Pine.SOL.4.21.0001142235090.22942-100000@apal.ii.uib.no>


Yes. -- Matthias :-)

   Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 22:41:13 +0100 (MET)
   From: Stig Erik Sandoe <stig@ii.uib.no>
   cc: matthias@rice.edu, noelw@dai.ed.ac.uk, plt-scheme@fast.cs.utah.edu
   Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

   On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:

   > Stig Erik Sandoe wrote:
   > 
   > > Is there an adaptable code-walker for MzScheme which could be used
   > > to reap information needed for a documentation tool?
   > 
   > The McMicMac front-end parses code and produces structures that you
   > can traverse.  But given that there is no embedded documentation
   > standard as yet, this won't be much use.

   I will have a look at it, as I have an interest in a tool to get
   info from scheme-code, and among the info is naturally
   documentation.  Doesn't the new MzScheme specific objects contain
   any documentation strings, as structs, classes and generic functions
   do in CL?  Is the idea of using the first object (if a string) in a
   lambda expr as documentation a taboo in Scheme circles?

   ie:

   (define (foo blah)
     "FOO does stuff based on BLAH"
     ...)

   or eq:

   (define foo (lambda (blah) "doc" ...))


   ------------------------------------------------------------------
   Stig Erik Sandoe     stig@ii.uib.no    http://www.ii.uib.no/~stig/


------- End of forwarded message -------