There are some potential applications for literate programming here. For example, when doing an 'untangle' from your literate program source (to extract the code), the typical way to allow changes to be merged back in is to add comments with line number information. A more structured place to put that data would be nicer. (although it would have to be a clojure-focused LP tool for this to work) I'm not really in love with this idea, as it doesn't feel very lisp-y.
Reversing the relationship, it could be nice to offer some standard LP-related metadata about top-level forms to indicate how they should be presented. For example: - should the docstring be extracted and presented as top-level text? - should this form be called out as important, or perhaps hidden entirely? - some example invocations and their results, in a structured way. Then we could (a) present the examples and results in the appropriate place, depending on the context, or (b) automatically recompute those results (or test against them) with a bit of tooling. Of these, only the example usages case feels like it would be useful outside LP, and thus be a candidate for common metadata. - Russell -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
