Thien-Thi Nguyen <t...@gnu.org> skribis: > At present, there is a protocol between the repl and the database of > docstrings (guile-procedures.txt) only, and only for libguile(?). And > those laboriously maintained docstrings do not make it into the manual, > either, by dint of the mindset. If that were to change, i think it > would be a SMOP to arrange to significantly improve the status of Guile > documentation. (Maybe that has already happened, but i missed it?)
For the record, AFAIK, docstrings from libguile are in sync with the manual currently. By that I mean that they are identical most of the time (I agree there are good reasons why they would/should differ in some cases, though.) [...] > And besides, how do the aforementioned modules (those are, as I > reckon, tsar and c-tsar) refer to guile-snarf-docs that is shipped > with guile source? > > They don't. The script guile-snarf-docs is not installed, and thus not > available to third parties I used a different approach in GnuTLS and other projects: it had a doc snarfer comparable to guile-snarf-docs, but written in Scheme (see <https://gitorious.org/gnutls/gnutls/trees/master/guile/modules/system/documentation> and related files.) That said, one of the benefits of using the FFI is that docstrings are no problem... Thanks, Ludo’.
