dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 17:19 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Doc snarfing of C code is done in several stages.
>>
>> [...]
FWIW, this area is on my medium-term mental roadmap, because in my
view online help is more useful when you have a more efficient
in
On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 17:19 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Dave Griffiths" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > I tried running the example through the C preprocessor, and it seems
> > > the docstring is lost anyway:
> >
> > There's some magic
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Dave Griffiths" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > I tried running the example through the C preprocessor, and it seems
> > the docstring is lost anyway:
>
> There's some magic with a "-DSCM_MAGIC_SNARF_DOCS" to get them, then
> the scripts/snarf-che
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Dave Griffiths" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > I tried running the example through the C preprocessor, and it seems
> > the docstring is lost anyway:
>
> There's some magic with a "-DSCM_MAGIC_SNARF_DOCS" to get them, then
> the scripts/snarf-che
"Dave Griffiths" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I tried running the example through the C preprocessor, and it seems
> the docstring is lost anyway:
There's some magic with a "-DSCM_MAGIC_SNARF_DOCS" to get them, then
the scripts/snarf-check-and-output-texi program picks them out from
the code.
Hi all,
I want to implement docstrings for my extension functions, but for various
reasons I can't use snarfing (the array it generates has problems with C++
namespaces).
So I had a look through the macros for SCM_DEFINE to find out what it does
with the DOCSTRING argument, and got lost pretty qu
