Re: Re: suggestion
Christophe Rhodes <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.cclan.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 12:45:18PM +0100, Daniel Barlow wrote: > There is no agreed documentation format, though there are a couple of > candidates. Personally I like mine ... > > http://ww.telent.net/api-reference.html > > is the documentation for db-sockets, assembled from #|| ||# comments > in source code, arglists, and doc strings. > > Christophe will be along in a minute to talk about his competing doc > format, I expect You rang? Mine has an example at http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/split-sequence/ and is assembled completely from introspection; that is, you run it in a lisp image with your package loaded, and it generates the documentation from docstrings and arglist information and the like. That said, it would need a _lot_ of polishing to be made useful... I suppose it's more likely to be easier in the short term to say that all packages should include a README, giving pointers to fuller documentation, and also possibly example commands provided by the package. Dunno. Cheers, Christophe -- Jesus College, Cambridge, CB5 8BL +44 1223 510 299 http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ (defun pling-dollar (str schar arg) (first (last +))) (make-dispatch-macro-character #\! t) (set-dispatch-macro-character #\! #\$ #'pling-dollar) ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old cell phone? Get a new here for FREE! https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390