Re: Doc: ideas and status

["Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>]

Gregg Reynolds <greynolds@enteract.com> writes:

> (Caveat:  this message is not about *ML or Docbook or Texinfo.  It is
> about semantic structuring of (meta)info, among other things.)
> 
> Spent some time this weekend working on guile doc stuff.  Computer
> started to flake out last night.  I think the CPU started to meltdown -
> the fan is on its last legs.  Sigh.  Anyway, it seems to have come back
> from the dead this a.m., so I began putting some stuff up on a web
> page.  Take a look at http://www.enteract.com/~greyno/guile and see if
> anything interests you.  Not much there at the moment, but there's a
> start for a requirements list for metainfo stuff.
> 
> Something I forgot to add: we needn't put docstrings in the funcdefs for
> RnRS stuff; instead we can markup the RnRS source with unique IDs, and
> cross reference.

I think it's better to have the guile docstrings be self-contained.
We're not going to want to require linking to an RnRS document for you
to get run-time documentation on, e.g., `map'.

> I did not add docstring info to the source yet, 'cause I wanted to get a
> better bird's-eye view first and get some feedback on metainfo ideas. 
> Now I think the thing to do is stick plaintext docstrings in the source
> code immediately; markup can then procede at its own pace.  I'll try to
> get a bunch of that done before Friday; after that I'm out for 3 weeks.

Yes; let's get the text of the documentation pasted into the code and
then proceed to revise and clean up after we have a consensus on markup
language and conventions.

Greg