Re: slime-edit-definition from within of (defpackage )
Pascal Bourguignon <[email protected]> Thu, 17 Nov 2022 09:53:55 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.slime.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Le 17/11/2022 à 00:29, Anton Vodonosov a écrit : > My workaround for now: > https://github.com/cl-plus-ssl/cl-plus-ssl/commit/d2b42922bf8395e7d921a1b76f2558bcb41f5227 > (committed permanently, instead of manually adding it every time) > 02.09.2022, 11:30, "Pascal Bourguignon" <[email protected]>: > > And slightly more difficult, but it would be nice too, to consider > making M-. work from documentation files. > > > > It’s a good idea to start from the package export list to browse a > package, but I never did it, notably because the export list loses the > kind of definition the symbols name. (Agreed, it’s often obvious, but > there are a lot of cases where multiple definitions of different kinds > exist). > > Yes, the type of definition is missing. > As a library maintainer, I like this approach for simplicity - no need > to care about doc generation. And it encourages to maintain a well > organized package.lisp file. In simple cases comments and grouping will > help to compensate the missing definition type information (func / macro > / etc). > As a library user, I would like this working because it's the quickest > way to study some dependency you have problems with. > Also, I like the uniformity - list of symbols is a CLHS -style > dictionary. Different library docs may have different formatting > conventions, > while when opening source code definition I deal with usual formatted > lisp code, which I am used to read anyways. Also for undocumented > libraries, the source code is the only documentation. > I plan / hope to make a tool to generate a colorized hyperlinked version > of package.lisp files. Every exported symbols will be linked source code > lines at github, the links will be generated using swank. > The same can be used for documentation generators (here I mean > generators for html docs published online). Although, Pascal,you > probably mean some other documentation files, brows-able from Emacs? Yes, since in general, the generated documentation has some kind of hyperlink already. That would be a simple minor mode add-on to slime, to allow M-. to work in documentation source files (whatever the format, .org, .md, .txt, etc). The heuristic to find the package would have to be extended (no in-package form, but there are other hints). -- __Pascal Bourguignon__