I'm planning on making SB-TEXINFO a proper contrib -- I already had
too many slightly divergent copies of it in various projects...
represents my best effort to get all those bits and pieces into one
place. ...haven't yet tested it for SBCL manual or all of those
projects, but for the one I did it looks OK.
If you are guilty of the same sin and have silently extended
docstrings.lisp somewhere, I would much appreciate getting a copy of
you version, along with notes of what it does differently.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Nikodemus Siivola
> If you are guilty of the same sin and have silently extended
> docstrings.lisp somewhere, I would much appreciate getting a copy of
> you version, along with notes of what it does differently.
Guilty. I did texinfo-docstrings a few years ago. David Lichteblau
improved upon that, and later started generalizing it onto
parse-docstrings, which purports to handle various markup syntaxes in
Going through the commit log, I am reminded of the following extra
* script for generating a doc/ dir with a Makefile and other boilerplate.
* syntax highlighting for Lisp code examples.
* pretty CSS for the HTML output. (At one point, I tried to emulate
the Ediware doc style for the single-page html output format. IIRC, I
didn't succeed due to texinfo limitations.)
* Makefile/script that generates all texinfo-supported formats and
generates an html listing thereof.
It uses closer-to-mop in an attempt to be portable, but I think some
non-MOP introspection bits are missing.
I think  and  are worthwhile projects, not sure what the best
way would be to coordinate work with SB-TEXINFO, in particular given
the requirement to be a SBCL contrib. (I assume that's because it's
needed to build SBCL's documentation.) Any ideas?
Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.