unofficial mirror of guile-user@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net>
Cc: guile-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role)
Date: 07 May 2003 22:06:57 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <m365omsbym.fsf@laruns.ossau.uklinux.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3EAFE4EC000D9733@pop1.tiscalinet.es>

>>>>> "Ricard" == Ricard Mira <ricardmm@tiscali.es> writes:

    Ricard> Thanks.  I think that I need to learn more about Guile in
    Ricard> order to be able to propose something sound, but I can
    Ricard> give my opinion as a user.

    Ricard> As a user who is learning Scheme to customize and extend
    Ricard> Guile-using programs, I expect the Guile documentation to
    Ricard> contain a section for each programming language (C and
    Ricard> Scheme for sure; translated languages maybe).  Then I need
    Ricard> to read just the Scheme section (and maybe also a general
    Ricard> introduction).

Interesting.  It was my idea to document the whole Guile API in the
current unified way, covering both C and Scheme together, but I have
been wondering about whether that was a good decision.  In many cases
it seems to result in adding a subsection saying "And there are also
these related C functions and macros ...", which feels unsatisfactory.

    Ricard> Neil, are your half-formed thoughts the same as my
    Ricard> half-formed thoughts? :-)

Not obviously, no, but it may be that there is some underlying overlap
between them.

My latest thinking is that we could be a lot more concrete, even
proscriptive, about what Guile is for and how people should use it,
and that if we did so it would be a lot easier to clearly assess the
state of the documentation and to finish it off.  (Right now, IMO, a
it is difficult even to describe the documentation status.)

Specifically, I think we should (**) promote doing as much programming
as possible in Scheme, and restrict documentation of the C API to the
parts needed for interfacing Scheme to C code.  (To give a concrete
example from another thread, I see no need for people to write C code
that uses scm_internal_catch.)

If we did this, I think the natural high level documentation structure
would then be:

- Scheme reference documentation - more or less like the current Part
  IV, but Scheme only, not C.

- Task-based documentation describing everything needed for aspects of
  interfacing with C code:

  - writing and exporting primitives (in modules)

  - smobs, GC, lifetimes etc.

  - Guile initialization from within a library

  - how to call out to a Scheme-defined procedure

  - how to look up a Scheme-defined variable

  - how to evaluate user-supplied code and catch errors

  - (anything else that I've missed).

Which has something in common with your thoughts.

That's what I'm thinking now, anyway.  I think (**) may be quite
controversial, so that at least needs a lot more discussion first.

Regards,
        Neil



_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user


  parent reply	other threads:[~2003-05-07 21:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-04-26  7:33 Around again, and docs lead role Neil Jerram
2003-04-26 10:19 ` Thamer Al-Harbash
2003-04-27 20:56   ` Neil Jerram
     [not found]   ` <3E92E1B40021F4D7@pop3.tiscalinet.es>
2003-04-27 21:01     ` Neil Jerram
     [not found]       ` <3E92E1B4002B0632@pop3.tiscalinet.es>
2003-04-30 22:47         ` Neil Jerram
     [not found]           ` <3EAFE4EC000D9733@pop1.tiscalinet.es>
2003-05-07 21:06             ` Neil Jerram [this message]
2003-05-08 16:21               ` Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role) Rob Browning
2003-05-08 17:50                 ` rm
2003-05-08 22:47                   ` Neil Jerram
2003-10-28 16:09                   ` Thien-Thi Nguyen
2003-05-08 22:36                 ` Neil Jerram
2003-05-09  2:23                   ` Rob Browning
2003-05-09 17:46                     ` David Van Horn
2003-05-10 11:32                     ` Neil Jerram
2003-05-15 16:02                       ` Rob Browning
2003-05-15 16:33                         ` Paul Jarc
2003-05-09 11:52                 ` Bill Schottstaedt
2003-05-13 23:01                   ` Neil Jerram
2003-05-14  1:07                     ` Viktor Pavlenko
2003-05-14 14:29                     ` Bill Schottstaedt
2003-05-15  7:55                       ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-05-17  3:02                         ` Max Techter
2003-05-09  8:15               ` tomas
2003-05-10 12:01                 ` Neil Jerram
2003-05-12 11:40                   ` tomas
2003-05-03  4:40         ` Around again, and docs lead role Robert Uhl
2003-05-03 11:34           ` rm
2003-05-03 22:21             ` Robert Uhl
2003-05-03 23:15               ` Thamer Al-Harbash
2003-05-04  8:40                 ` David Allouche
2003-05-04 21:34                 ` Robert Uhl
2003-05-04 19:47               ` rm
2003-05-04 21:42                 ` Robert Uhl
2003-05-04 23:38                   ` Thien-Thi Nguyen
2003-05-07 22:52             ` Neil Jerram
2003-05-08 22:32               ` State of Docs [was] " rm
2003-05-08 23:11                 ` Neil Jerram
2003-05-10  0:47                   ` State of Docs Kevin Ryde

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=m365omsbym.fsf@laruns.ossau.uklinux.net \
    --to=neil@ossau.uklinux.net \
    --cc=guile-user@gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).