|
From: | Elf |
Subject: | Re: [Chicken-users] Re: A few questions |
Date: | Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:27:01 -0800 (PST) |
we could just define a special form (define-with-docstring <name|lambda list> <list|string> body...)
which would just be syntactic sugar for a define and a procedure-data. this of course leaves variables and macros undefined. we could also change how define itself works and try to make it smart about such things, but this would almost certainly be a bad idea. a third possibility is similar to whats in place already... have explicitly named elements of an associated proplist with each var/func, optionally. -elf On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, John Cowan wrote:
Hans Nowak scripsit:Re docstrings: My next question would be, is it possible to add them (e.g. as a library)? And would it be desirable to do so? Apparently it is already possible to write code like: (define (foo x) "docstring for foo" ...body...)Yes, but that will not work for non-function definitions; furthermore, (define (f x) "foobar") is ambiguous: is "foobar" a docstring, or the constant result of the function f?
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |