On May 28, 2011, at 4:26 AM, Felix wrote:
I would suggest a type tag, which can be used for foreign- and
(forthcoming)
specialization type specifiers. It is generic enough to be re-usable for
different
type-related purposes and having multiple entities of type type in the same
document is
I will say this: adding a dedicated tag foreign-type-spec -- that will be
used only on one page ever -- seems kind of silly. On the other hand, the
more generic tag specifier seems to be incompatible with how chicken-doc is
currently implemented and used. So we may have to resort to a
From: Kon Lovett konlov...@gmail.com
Subject: [Chicken-hackers] Request to edit manual Foreign type specifiers
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 13:33:47 -0700
Hi Folks,
I would like to edit the Foreign type specifiers manual section so
pointer entries follow the optional attribute convention
On May 26, 2011, at 3:39 AM, Felix wrote:
does chicken-doc
know anything about foreign type specifiers? If not, should it, and what
should be the markup? Would using the [...] convention make an existing
or possible future extension of chicken-doc problematic?
That's an excellent point. I'm
Jim Ursetto zbignie...@gmail.com writes:
1) A dedicated tag: typespec, foreigntypespec; importspec
I suggest adding a dash of dashes, e.g. foreign-type-spec
Thoughts, anyone?
I don't really get the difference between specifier and identifier,
can you elaborate on that?
Also, let me know
Hi Folks,
I would like to edit the Foreign type specifiers manual section so
pointer entries follow the optional attribute convention introduced
by '[nonnull-] c-string*'. I will also add a general note about the
pointer passing/return #f - NULL conversion.
In keeping with the spirit
