Hi, Gregory Marton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can I help? I mean, presuming that the sentence above, or some > extension, is reasonable documentation? I get a sense that there is a > reluctance to document things because that entails a commitment to > supporting them in the future -- is that the issue here? Not really. I was planning to document part of the `module-' procedure but never did it. In case you want to do it, those worth documenting (IMO) are the following: module-define! module-defined? module-duplicates-handlers module-export! module-for-each module-map module-name module-public-interface module-re-export! module-ref module-remove! module-replace! module-reverse-lookup ;; with xref to the "Variables" node module-set! module-variable ;; with xref to the "Variables" node This would go under the "Module System Reflection" node. Feel free to contribute! :-) > Being new to the community, I don't have a sense of how this strange > library system called srfi works. SRFIs are a community standardization process among Scheme implementors and users: http://srfi.schemers.org/ Anyone can propose an SRFI, but you wouldn't amend an SRFI just to make such or such implementation happier. The idea is to provide APIs portable among implementations. In practice, they are often implemented as a layer above the implementation's own API for the same purpose. Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Bug-guile mailing list Bug-guile@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
