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
next prev 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).