Re: Patchy email

[David Kastrup]

Marc Hohl <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 28.07.2012 14:08, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> [...]
>>
>> One thing that occured to me is that this contains a whole lot of public
>> functions without any DOC string.  No idea whether this might cause a
>> problem for the documentation run, but it certainly is not much of a
>> help for humans understanding the code.
> Good point. Since the current state is an intermediate one
> (well, kind of), I'll cover the doc strings in part 2 if that'll be ok.

I think there were no documentation strings before, and I don't think
that they would be extracted into user-readable documentations anyway,
which is a step backwards when the C implementation has them.

We'll need to think about that at some point of time in general.

I would still strongly suggest that the documentation strings are
maintained when stuff gets ported to Scheme: we'll likely make use of
them at some point of time, and they still help when actually reading
the code.

Now if I remember correctly, you diligently maintained every existing
documentation string (namely, none).  So we are not worse off than
before, and there is no point postponing matters on this front.

-- 
David Kastrup