On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 12:18 +0100, Christophe Rhodes wrote:
> Craig Lanning <clanning@...> writes:
> > Attached is a patch for the docs that I added. Were these functions
> > undocumented on purpose or would this patch be an acceptable addition to
> > SBCL?
> Two (or more) things: firstly, the patch shouldn't duplicate
> information: if it's in the docstring of the function, it shouldn't be
> in a comment above the function. Secondly, historically there has been
> a certain amount of divergence of opinion as to what should be
> documented and what should be considered internal. Probably the best
> way to ensure that the docstrings stay around would be to document the
> SAP functions and their use fully, in the manual (importing the
> docstring fragments in the texinfo source). Do you think you could come
> up with a patch that adds them to the section on "Untyped memory" in
> "Accessing Foreign Values" of the manual?
Sure, I can do that. I wondered where in the manual it belonged.
>>>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE>>> This electronic mail message, including any and/or all attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may contain confidential and/or privileged information, pertaining to business conducted under the direction and supervision of the sending organization. All electronic mail messages, which may have been established as expressed views and/or opinions (stated either within the electronic mail message or any of its attachments), are left to the sole responsibility of that of the sender, and are not necessarily attributed to the sending organization. Unauthorized interception, review, use, disclosure or distribution of any such information contained within this electronic mail message and/or its attachment(s), is(are) strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by replying to this electronic mail message, along with the destruction of all copies of the original electronic mail message (along with any attachments).