Re: [Sbcl-devel] SBLC docstrings

[Christophe R. <cs...@ca...>]

"William Bland" <doc...@gm...> writes:

> If I was to make patches to fill in the gaps, would this be useful to
> people other than myself and potentially get included in future
> releases?  Or are the omissions deliberate for some reason that I've
> overlooked?

White the omissions might not be deliberate, the documentation for CL
symbols is not as necessary as it would be for, say, symbols in
SB-EXT, given the existence and ubiquity of the standard text and the
prohibition on implementations from adding extra meanings to all but a
very few symbols.  So that said, I would encourage you to submit
patches to document CL symbols particularly if there is something that
needs explaining to the user: and if that is the case, then the patch
should also touch the User Manual in doc/manual, using the new
docstring.  Where the documentation string is just a copy of the CLHS
entry (or, worse, an incomplete or slightly differently-phrased copy),
I'm a lot less enthusiastic.

Cheers,

Christophe