Re: Guile in Emacs

[Helmut Eller]

* David Kastrup [2010-04-15 11:06+0200] writes:

> <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>>>>>> "David" == David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>> David> Did you bother to read my posting to its end before replying to the
>> David> first sentence?  I should think that I already addressed this.
>>
>> My apologies if I have misunderstood something; I did read all of the
>> mail.
>>
>> You wrote in the second paragraph:
>>
>>> Otherwise, only programmers can be expected to be able to use it.  One
>>> reason for that is that non-Emacs specific Lisp manuals will not focus
>>> about how to get things done with Emacs.  Applying a manual utterly
>>> without editing focus to editing tasks is quite a large intellectual
>>> feat.
>>
>> I would imagine that the system came with several manuals, a generic
>> one for common lisp (for instance the hyperspec) and a more emacs
>> specific one for the editing libraries (such as the buffer related
>> functions).
>>
>> Why would it make a big difference whether (say) `loop' and
>> `current-buffer' appear in different manuals as long as both are
>> available in the system and there are some appropriate top-level
>> index/search/contents/reading-guide support for the user?
>
> Because the language specific manual would have no constructs and no
> examples using any editor-specific data structures or any
> editor-specific tasks.
>
> But that's actually more or less a paraphrase of the "Otherwise, [...]"
> paragraph above again.  I don't see anything in your reply that would
> address that.

Guile supposedly supports multiple languages, like Scheme, Python and
Javascript.  So who writes the manual for Python and Javascript?

Helmut