I won't object, and the alter-meta! approach allows you to do that. Of
> course, it cannot provide documentation for the implementations, but the
> interface docs may be extended with impl docs incrementally at the
> location where the implementation is defined. That's at least better
> than
Warren Lynn writes:
>> In general, all different versions of a function should somehow do
>> the same thing, so with separate docstrings you'd need to repeat
>> yourself. A good guideline is to write the "big picture" first,
>> followed by the meaning of the different parameters.
>>
> I agree th
> In general, all different versions of a function should somehow do the
> same thing, so with separate docstrings you'd need to repeat yourself.
> A good guideline is to write the "big picture" first, followed by the
> meaning of the different parameters.
>
>
I agree the design should keep a
Warren Lynn writes:
> Is there a way to create doc strings on both interfaces (procotols,
> multi functions) and concrete implementations (protocol
> implementation, multi-methods)?
No, I don't think so.
> Assuming we don't have it yet, what I am hoping for is, when I do (doc
> symbol), or use
Is there a way to create doc strings on both interfaces (procotols, multi
functions) and concrete implementations (protocol implementation,
multi-methods)? For now it seems to me I can only have doc strings for the
interfaces. If that is the case, I feel it is something worth fixing,
because in
