On Mar 2, 3:04 pm, Michael Wood <esiot...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think David is having trouble finding the documentation for > meta. He's complaining that the output of (doc meta) does not tell > you that you need to use (meta (var meta)) instead of (meta 'meta) or > (meta meta).
Something like that, yes. Now, if the :doc in question contained "for example (meta (var something))" it would've been user friendlier. At least for newcomers like me who don't know that "obj" (in the meta :doc) really means "var". The more I think of it, the more I realize that :doc is not the best way of describing what it contains. I'd say it's more like :ref (as in reference). If you're a seasoned Clojure (OK Lisp) programmer, you quickly grasp onto the meaning, but if you're an old fashioned Java one, you might need more. So... Here's a proposal: break the existing :doc into :ref, :exmpl and :doc. Or even some sort of :xdoc containing an XML structured data (including real-world examples), which one could transform (using XSLT) into human-readable format (including colours, bold text, and other eye-catching rendering tricks) tailored also for IDE usage. Regards, David --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
