This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Guile docstrings---should Guile code be ANSI C compatible?
- Subject: Re: Guile docstrings---should Guile code be ANSI C compatible?
- From: Gregg Reynolds <greynolds at greynolds dot com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 20:29:29 -0600
- CC: guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <E129GC4-0004oo-00@mdj.nada.kth.se>
Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
>
> (Again I'm forced to bring things up which could be interpreted as
> implicit criticism of Greg's work: Let me just repeat that I like
> his work a lot, and think it is important.)
>
> Guile's current docstrings are not compatible with ANSI C.
>
> "In ANSI C, string literals are not allowed to continue past newlines
> like this, but this is how Guile's docstrings look like now."
>
> "ANSI C requires that newlines are included explicitly\n\
> like that."
>
A tuppence: fwiw, I see this as a good argument for segregating longish
comments in a separate file. The C language is for writing programs,
not prose. Personally I like to see minimal embedded comments when
working on code. Given properly structured c comments and doc files,
it's pretty simple to write an emacs macro so a single keypunch will pop
of the detailed commentary. That also provides greater flexibility
regarding the generation of formatted doco (imho).
(Don't get me wrong; I respect GregB's earlier point about just getting
the basic docstring content included in the form we now have and will do
that for the files I've claimed. But I think it's worthwhile to think
creatively in this regard for the longer term.)
-gregg