Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes: > On Fri 01 Oct 2010 11:02, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >>> A slightly related question: I'm preparing patches to add SRFI 42 and >>> 67. I don't know if I'll find the time and motivation to also provide a >>> texinfo version of their specifications (and, contrary to SRFI 27, these >>> would essentially be literal transcriptions). Would patches which just >>> add links to the documents at http://srfi.schemers.org/ into the manual >>> at the appropriate places be acceptable as well? >> >> Currently only SRFI-34 lacks documentation. Personally I find it handy >> to have complete, user-oriented SRFI documentation in the manual, but I >> reckon that writing it is tedious. > > Sure it's tedious. But it's totally necessary. Some days that's all I > do. No, it's not as fun as hacking. I think though, given that we all > have benefited from Guile's documentation, that we should not consider > features as being complete if they are not accompanied with proper > updates to the manual. > > In the particular case of srfis, I would think that one could rig up an > htmlprag -> stexi translator, and thus get most of the way ;-) You could > start with the code in guile-gnome in (gnome gw support gtk-doc). > >> Still, some sort of a transcription would be nice (though for SRFI-42, >> for example, the second part of the abstract and the rationale don’t >> belong in Guile’s manual), but having the code is nice too, so... > > Yes, having code is good. But really, we need code *and* > documentation. It should only take a couple hours or so, and it's really > appreciated. > OK, I'll see what I can do.
Regards, Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann -- <http://rotty.yi.org/>
