On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 5:44 AM Tomas Volf <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nikolaos Chatzikonstantinou <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2025, 7:38 PM Tomas Volf <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From my experience, the most annoying > >> part to get at least semi-right are dependency tracking and > >> documentation generation, so it would be nice if that was covered. > > > > Which part of documentation generation? Im currently writing a Guile > > library that i will publish soon and I will also add an example project > > that shows how to get texinfo docs into HTML in codeberg pages with their > > CI. (If that is what you meant.) > > Ah, my bad, I should have been clearer. I have meant generating (part > of) the texi file from the scheme source code. In both Guix and Guile, > there is a problem that useful procedures exist, are exported, but they > are not mentioned in the manual, making it hard to discover them. > > In my projects I have "solved" this problem by generating part of the > manual based on public bindings of the modules. See this[0] section. > Not all variables have associated documentation string, true, but at > least their existence is documented. > > 0: > https://files.wolfsden.cz/manuals/guile-wolfsden/guile-wolfsden-0.0.7.html#Auto_002dgenerated-documentation
I wished for this in the past but I have abandoned my attempts. In particular I'd like your set-documentation! (or should it be documentation-set! ?) to be part of Guile itself, together with the extraction means, and some encouragement from their side for the user base to use these tools. It would not hurt. Barring that, I will revisit the issue and see what I can do about it for my examples and subsequent projects. P.S. I'm surprised that you did not use any CSS for your .html files! I use MAKEINFOFLAGS = --css-ref=style.css in my Makefile.am. Regards, Nikolaos Chatzikonstantinou
