On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> At Thu, 8 May 2014 20:40:35 +0200, Laurent wrote: > > At the end of Matthew's (awesome and quite informative) "metaprogramming" > > video [1] he uses a doc-string+contract `define`. > > > > Is the "doc-define.rkt" file available somewhere? Google only led me to > the > > corresponding paper [2] but I could not find the file in the archives. > > The complete implementation is below.As you can see, it's just enough > to make the talk's example run. > Thanks! > > Also, I'm wondering why he chose not to show the usual in-source > > documentation of Racket and instead went for something that is not built > in > > Racket as of today. > > The current in-source documentation tool is an experiment to figure out > what we want and how it can work. I think the "doc-define.rkt" sketch > better illustrates what we've figured out that we want --- not all in > place, yet, but within reach --- and so it makes more sense in a talk. > Ooh, so this is still work in progress then? (sorry about my previous rant in a different post about the doc system then, I thought it was just never going to happen.) This would be a much awaited feature! But certainly it's not easy to do Right. Beside third-party libs, are there current plans to have such an in-source doc-string documentation feature? Or plans to work on it? FWIW, I've also made a similar thing [1] for RWind, except that it's currently only for use on the command line, but I was planning to have it export to scribble/scrdoc too. I was hoping that Matthew's doc-string `define` would give me some guidance on how to do it properly ;) @Greg and Neil: Thanks for your answers. I agree that terseness is not nice for the new user, but I also worry about verbose definitions (since defining forms is what a programmer does all day). [1] https://github.com/Metaxal/rwind/blob/master/doc-string.rkt
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
