Schemey markup (was Re: Doc Tasks)

[Lalo Martins <lalo at webcom dot com>]

On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 06:47:29PM -0330, Greg Harvey wrote:
> 
> A better approach that could keep all of us happy :) might be to
> define a simple set of tags that'll handle any formatting we might
> want for docstrings.

I see all the arguments against that, but I can also give a
handful of arguments _for_ that. And I was the guy who asked
for sgml originally, I think.

But it so happens that

(foo
  some text
)

is nicer to type and grok than

<foo>
  some text
</foo>

and of course it's pretty easy to convert the first form into
the second one programatically.

Some sort of bastard amalgama between scheme and sgml is pretty
easy to code and to write on, and it would be cool to document
guile using this format because if you're documenting Guile,
then you know scheme, and then the format will be familiar.

All we need to do is recognize keyword parameters and treat
everything else as one big string.


Hmm. Not really advocating this. Just asking everyone to think
about it before discarding the idea. Might be worth the while,
and would of course be easy to extend (if you're committing a
docstring that needs a new piece of markup, you discuss your
new markup on the list, then you implement it on the
``guiledoc.scm'' module which has the code to convert this to
sgml and texi. Everyone happy.

[]s,
                                               |alo
                                               +----
--
      I am Lalo of deB-org. You will be freed.
                 Resistance is futile.

http://www.webcom.com/lalo      mailto:lalo@webcom.com
                 pgp key in the web page

Debian GNU/Linux       ---       http://www.debian.org
Brazil of Darkness   --   http://zope.gf.com.br/BroDar