Re: [External] : Supplying DOC string in a `defun' using `defvar'

[Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>]

* Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> [2021-06-02 21:37]:
> Drew Adams [2021-06-02 15:53:31] wrote:
> >> > From my point of view, the docstring should have 
> >> > nothing to do with either dynamic or lexical binding.
> >> No, but
> > I guess (hope) that your "No, but" really means "Yes,
> > but", and that you agree that it _should_ indeed have
> > nothing to do with dynamic or lexical binding.
> >> it's a new language feature, so it makes sense that 
> >> you need to use the new dialect for it be available.
> > I don't see how that makes sense at all.  It doesn't
> > follow logically that every "new language feature"
> > must work _only_ with the lexical binding dialect
> > turned ON.
> 
> Indeed it doesn't mean it would be bad to support
> (:documentation <foo>) in the dynbound case.  But it's argument for not
> bothering to do so.

That feature is kind of hidden, as the only place where it is
mentioned in the manual is at (elisp) Generic Functions

 -- Macro: cl-defgeneric name arguments [documentation]
          [options-and-methods...] &rest body
     This macro defines a generic function with the specified NAME and
     ARGUMENTS.  If BODY is present, it provides the default
     implementation.  If DOCUMENTATION is present (it should always be),
     it specifies the documentation string for the generic function, in
     the form ‘(:documentation DOCSTRING)’.  The optional
     OPTIONS-AND-METHODS can be one of the following forms:

So it is not official feature, as `defun' and `cl-defgeneric' are not
same and there is nothing about it explained in `defun' doc-string



-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/