Re: [Chicken-users] docstrings

[felix]

Anthony Carrico wrote:

>I agree. Docstrings don't seem appropriate for the compiler. I would
>prefer to see Chicken end up as a lean mean compiler well supported by
>optional external libraries (rather than seeing it turn into a monolith
>like CommonLisp).

[and]

> > Well, I see interactive experimentation and exploration as a huge win,
> > and part of what makes Scheme and Python attractive to me. Just that I
> > can try out little ideas to remind myself of argument ordering, say,
> > or define little tests to see how a feature works or a routine returns
> > failure. (I really enjoy Squeak Smalltalk's Browser, too...)
> 
> I understand, but I question if this is (or should be) one of Chicken's
> design goals. It certainly isn't a reason that I use Chicken. When I want
> a nice interactive environment, I use a different tool.
> 

I have to say that I fully agree with this. And something that I am
always
eager to point out: the compiler is extensible, too.


cheers,
felix