This is the mail archive of the
guile@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Docstring snarfing directions
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 12:25:20AM -0400, Steve Tell wrote:
>
> Greg and guilers everywhere,
>
> [...]
>
> Do any tools depend yet on the format of the .doc files generated by
> guile-doc-snarf? Could the format be trivialy extended to encompass the
> other types of docstrings?
>
> I'm imagining a flow like this:
>
> - Guile-doc-snarf extracts all docstrings from foo.c into foo.doc
>
> - Another tool collates the entries from the *.doc files producing files
> app-procedures.txt, app-hooks.txt, app-variables.txt, app-concepts.txt,
> etc.
>
> - Suitable backend scripts complete the markup of those text files into
> the format of choice, probably texinfo or docbook as chosen by the
> particular application. (Sure guile itself may choose texinfo, but
> please don't make me reinvent the whole docstring-extraction system if my
> app chooses docbook.)
I wrote a little tool that abuses the *.doc files to create up-to-date
documentation of the guile language (it's in perl, shudder!). I was
thinking of converting it so that the information is
- stored in a database, with checksums for the documentation _and_
the code part.
- automatic nightly checkout from the CVS. As soon as the checksum
for the code changes the system would notify about a possible out-
of-sync between code and documentation.
> I guess what I'm asking is, has this all been planned or even prototyped
> already such that I can borrow ideas or additional pieces. Or, if I
> charge ahead, is there general interest in somthing like the above?
Docstrings for variables etc. would be very nice indeed. BTW, i too
prefer DocBook format. I think it's better suited as a backend format
that can be converted to different output formats.
Ralf
> Steve
>