RE: Re: HS violations in Corman

Yep, my mistake. Corman Lisp is currently using DEFUN to pull the doc
string out of the lambda and store it associated with the name. It looks
like it really ought to be leaving it in the lambda, and letting the
compiler associate it with the function (not the name). Then the
DOCUMENTATION function would, if given a name, refer to the function to
get the documentation string. This has little bearing on users, I
believe, because I don't imagine using doc strings in a bare lambda (not
associated with a name) is used often.

Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul F. Dietz
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 3:52 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [cormanlisp] Re: HS violations in Corman


Roger Corman wrote:

> I had no idea lambda forms supported doc strings. I thought those were
> purely part of DEFxxx macros (defun, defvar, etc.). What is the system

> supposed to do with them (besides properly parse them)?

See the page for DOCUMENTATION

(documentation x 'function) does this:

     If x is a function, returns the documentation string associated
with x.

but note that a conforming implementation is free to discard
documentation strings at any time.  If it does not, you get:

(documentation #'(lambda () "foo" nil) 'function) ==> "foo"

	Paul







To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/xaxhjB/hdqFAA/xGHJAA/SyjtlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/