From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add implementation of SRFI 27 Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:59:26 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87bp7sm891.fsf@delenn.lan> <877hi5q0qg.fsf@gnu.org> <1255814696.192356.1285886306079.JavaMail.root@zmbs1.inria.fr> <87aamycmlz.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1285941383 10549 80.91.229.12 (1 Oct 2010 13:56:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:56:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 01 15:56:22 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P1g60-0003w8-Sq for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:56:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46328 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P1g60-00043B-C8 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:56:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53366 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P1g5s-00042v-1s for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:56:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P1g5o-0006EL-Hr for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:56:11 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:37555 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P1g5o-0006E7-EE; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:56:08 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB924DAE1B; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:56:07 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=e9tO2bXXT3an tqrIFek+K1j0Fns=; b=vdqWu0AHDO+9Bk+gSCfbirsjVDTidG9YcLpBdu7Gyip7 5KQhI/CyuIv7gvrodpLP+xluJplanGFZpwK8ZEUcDaAYxr8xjU3+a1ZZ4YkpQgt3 dAk4EAhvPlyuqTAzW8ao8fANTQEnEX09Tzj9MMY5CtEeNsTnHURlhb6N9XlK2ls= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=qTID9K PHh988FyBvEemWKCngLI7+guFsl7DkVyxi+XinSBKYxmiQYCAfBkvj6qMiRGPApq 2IDeLRFaWBu4h7z18OjfLhoinCnoFDfzSsNBl28+kL0dzTHOBiUartP51P8In1nW MNJ6hV5TFV9yABOPuWH9ryEVD1ZGXy7wVo1b4= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87875DAE1A; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:56:05 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [81.38.181.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F194DAE17; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:56:02 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87aamycmlz.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:02:00 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A2725538-CD63-11DF-A550-030CEE7EF46B-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:10975 Archived-At: On Fri 01 Oct 2010 11:02, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: >> A slightly related question: I'm preparing patches to add SRFI 42 and >> 67. I don't know if I'll find the time and motivation to also provide a >> texinfo version of their specifications (and, contrary to SRFI 27, these >> would essentially be literal transcriptions). Would patches which just >> add links to the documents at http://srfi.schemers.org/ into the manual >> at the appropriate places be acceptable as well? > > Currently only SRFI-34 lacks documentation. Personally I find it handy > to have complete, user-oriented SRFI documentation in the manual, but I > reckon that writing it is tedious. Sure it's tedious. But it's totally necessary. Some days that's all I do. No, it's not as fun as hacking. I think though, given that we all have benefited from Guile's documentation, that we should not consider features as being complete if they are not accompanied with proper updates to the manual. In the particular case of srfis, I would think that one could rig up an htmlprag -> stexi translator, and thus get most of the way ;-) You could start with the code in guile-gnome in (gnome gw support gtk-doc). > Still, some sort of a transcription would be nice (though for SRFI-42, > for example, the second part of the abstract and the rationale don=E2=80= =99t > belong in Guile=E2=80=99s manual), but having the code is nice too, so... Yes, having code is good. But really, we need code *and* documentation. It should only take a couple hours or so, and it's really appreciated. Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/