Jan Braun <[email protected]> writes: > I tried your code, it worked. :-) Thank you very much.
Thanks for the feedback.
> As you only needed 10 minutes, while mine wasn’t working
> after hours, may I ask your help again?
Sure, the idea is to get this thing running and add it to AUCTeX :-)
> Enclosed you’ll find my version, at least I have added a
> lots of comments.
Thanks. Just FTR: Most of regulars here are used to read diff's, so
please send diff's in future to make progress easier.
> When inserting the user documentation, you should not only use
> the function or variable environments, you should also insert
> a syntax environment therein.
I've implemented something which asks if you want a syntax environment
as well (see the file attached). It doesn't look if you're in a
documentation or implementation part, it just asks the user.
> Besides asking the user which options to use and which
> variables/macronames to insert, it should also ask, if it should
> insert the syntax environment and prefill it with the macroname in
> vertical bars.
I had a look at l3doc.pdf section 4.4 Describing functions in the
documentation page 6 and it seems to me that the functions in the
mandatory argument look different than the ones in the syntax env, i.e.:
\begin{function}[pTF]{\cs_if_exist:N}
\begin{syntax}
\cs{cs_if_exist_p:N} \meta{cs}
\end{syntax}
\meta{description}
\end{function}
Can we really take the argument and plonk it into a \cs in the syntax
env?
> Again, AUCTeX could insert a copy of the macro names, defined in the
> mandatory argument of the
>
> What do you think?
I'm not sure about this part. It is too hard to predict what will
happen in the macrocode environment so I'm not sure if it is a good idea
to insert the macros names.
I'm attaching the current state for l3doc.el and doc.el. Please have a
look. Any comments welcome.
Best, Arash
l3doc.el
Description: application/emacs-lisp
doc.el
Description: application/emacs-lisp
