Re: CVS script

[Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow@mit.edu>]

mstachow@mit.edu writes:
> 
> jimb@red-bean.com writes:
> > 
> > > Is there any reason not to apply the current scwm doc engine to guile?
> > > (Apart from requiring time and effort)  Is there any likelihood of
> > > having to rewrite the in-code doc strings if guie were to switch over
> > > now?
> > 
> > Guile probably will adopt SCSH's docstring system, and a bunch of its
> > Emacs tools, as well.
> 
> Argh. What's wrong with the current code we're using for scwm? We
> already have something that fits nicely into a guilified universe,
> plus generates a handy docstring reference manual. It just needs the
> few minor adjustments I posted earlier to work nicely with Guile.
> 

Also, even more relevantly, we are willing to do the work to integrate
our extractor with Guile and change it to meet your specs on things
like the way to embed docstrings in C source and the processed
docstring file output format (if using the same format as scsh for
either of these would be useful for whatever reason, for instance). I
don't want to see scwm's and guile's solutions for docstrings
diverging, and we really like the capability of generating a DocBook
reference from the docstrings for scwm. It would be annoying to have
to choose between doing things the guile way and having this reference
capability that we really like.

 - Maciej