Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wrote:
>>
>> Yes.
>
> (Which is not to say I'm sure it'd look better, just an idea. Those
> bits don't seem like they should be terribly difficult, a niceish or
> typical example of each is probably plenty.)
I'm inclined not to do this right now.
We probably should do something like this in the future, when we come
to do a fine detail "could this doc appear in a printed book" kind of
review, because the node as it stands has no framing or context at
all. Then I think we may find that when some of text is moved outside
the deffn's, it will make sense to split up the deffn's as you've
suggested. But I don't think it makes sense to make this kind of
change now, and looking at just one node in isolation.
(FYI I'm currently trying to do this level of review for the parts of
the manual related to debugging, and making gradual progress on it.
This isn't because I have secret book-publishing plans :-), it's just
because I want to make sure that it's all correct, and I'd like to be
able to say that these sections of the manual are in their final form
(subject to future changes, of course).)
Regards,
Neil
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
