Re: Contributions to Guile

["Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu>]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Chad Albers <calbers@neomantic.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Christopher Allan Webber
> <cwebber@dustycloud.org> wrote:
>> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>>
>>> Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org> skribis:
>>>
>>>> Chad Albers writes:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> b. More robust documentation system - texinfo is not the greatest. And
>>>>> it's non-trivial to generate any documentation (including texinfo) for
>>>>> modules.
>>>>
>>>> Texinfo is pretty nice to use if you're an emacs user... in fact, if
>>>> you're an emacs user, it's the best documentation reading system in the
>>>> world.  But not everyone's an emacs user.
>>>
>>> I think Texinfo is OK even if you’re not an Emacs user, no?  Especially
>>> with the just-release 6.1 where menus can (finally!) be automatically
>>> generated.
>>>
>>>> If the html export was nicely themed
>
> IMHO, HTML has clearly won the documentation game.  I believe it goes
> without saying that most developers have a web browser installed,
> rather than a textinfo reader.  The more the guile project publishes
> easily searchable (without google) documentation in the most
> accessible media format the better for guile.

We can clearly have both.  Nice looking HTML docs on the Guile website
are possible with a little CSS magic and some nice fonts.  Thanks to
Texinfo, we also get Info and PDF versions!  Having the Guile
documentation nicely integrated with my editor (Emacs) is a *huge*
productivity booster.  Having HTML-only documentation would be a major
setback for Guile.

- Dave