Re: [Sbcl-devel] SBLC docstrings

[William B. <doc...@gm...>]

On 4/13/06, Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> wrote:
> "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...
> ...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.

Hi Christophe,

I can certainly understand and agree with the first part of the above;
the documentation is not strictly necessary since you can look it up
in other places.  The second part seems to suggest that you're making
the leap somehow from "not necessary" to "actively harmful".  Could
you expand on this a little?

In case it helps to know my motivation for doing this, LispDoc runs on
SBCL and uses documentation strings as short descriptions of each
result, to display alongside links to things like the CLHS and PCL.

Cheers,
Bill.
--
William Bland: http://www.abstractnonsense.org/
Lisp documentation: http://www.lispdoc.com/