Re: [Chicken-users] hahn/salmonella issues

[lundi]

To answer my own question regarding possible alternatives to hahn: I 
found that simply writing documentation to source with a special comment 
prefix and then extracting that with some shell voodoo will be closest 
to what I want.

My main gripe with hahn is that IDEs will commonly not recognize the @() 
docstrings as such, so they will cause a lot of visual clutter in the 
source. So instead I'll just extract comments starting with a triple 
semicolon and write those to a wiki file.

> $ cat file.scm | sed 's/^[ \t]+//' | grep -e "^;;;" | cut -b 5- > file.wiki

I considered writing documenting comments in Markdown and then pipe 
those through markdown-svnwiki, but I feel like there's little benefit 
over just writing comments directly in svnwiki syntax.

Obviously there's a lot of room for improvement here. For instance it 
would be great to have a way of automatically converting procedure 
definitions into <procedure>(fn args) blocks. Also, support for 
multi-line comments and extracting info from .meta files would be nice 
to have.

Would anybody be interested in having an egg that provides this sort of 
functionality? I'm under the impression that hardly anybody uses hahn so 
I imagine nobody would use this either.

Best wishes,
-Heinz