Re: Around again, and docs lead role

[Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net>]

>>>>> "rm" == rm  <rm@fabula.de> writes:

    rm> I started writing up some info last night but i'm not shure
    rm> whether the lack of documentation actually manifests some
    rm> public vs. private API issue.

Now, no, it just manifests lack of documentation, I'm afraid :-)

In the future, though, I do think it would be nice to reach a
situation where

         documented <=> public and supported API

    rm> Hmm, there a a handfull of pretty good Scheme intros
    rm> available, why bother duplicating these efforts (better: write
    rm> a Guile-specific addendum for one of these).

Tricky one, but I think if we get the rest of the GUile docs right,
and bring more users on board, the need (or not) for this will become
clearer.

    rm> Yes. And it would be _very_ helpfull if the documentation
    rm> would mention what modules need to be "used" for certain
    rm> functions [(ice-9 regexp) for regular expressions ...).

Completely agree; it's just a bug if the necessary use-module isn't
documented.  Patches welcome!

    rm> Another question: there's some very good information in the
    rm> guile-workbook CVS module. But sometimes it's hard to tell
    rm> whether a piece is documenting an existing fact of Guile or
    rm> rather proposing a new impementation.

IMO the starting assumption should be that workbook stuff is not
implemented and so not valid as documentation.  If you can identify
any text that is valid, then ideally, please convert it to a patch
against the manual.

Regards,
        Neil



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