Re: Guile docstrings---should Guile code be ANSI C compatible?

[Gregg Reynolds <greynolds at greynolds dot com>]

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