Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de> writes: > Am 28.07.2012 14:08, schrieb David Kastrup: >> [...] >> >> One thing that occured to me is that this contains a whole lot of public >> functions without any DOC string. No idea whether this might cause a >> problem for the documentation run, but it certainly is not much of a >> help for humans understanding the code. > Good point. Since the current state is an intermediate one > (well, kind of), I'll cover the doc strings in part 2 if that'll be ok.
I think there were no documentation strings before, and I don't think that they would be extracted into user-readable documentations anyway, which is a step backwards when the C implementation has them. We'll need to think about that at some point of time in general. I would still strongly suggest that the documentation strings are maintained when stuff gets ported to Scheme: we'll likely make use of them at some point of time, and they still help when actually reading the code. Now if I remember correctly, you diligently maintained every existing documentation string (namely, none). So we are not worse off than before, and there is no point postponing matters on this front. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
