> I don't think the reduction in complexity will result in a > gain in productivity. If we decouple stumpwm.texi from the source, > we'll have to maintain the docstrings and the documentation. As it > stands right now, adding a function to the manual is a fairly > straightforward procedure of flagging the right symbols and the > makefile creates the appropriate stumpwm.texi file.
The complexity reduction is one of the benefits which I see in this. There is also the fact that by editing `stumpwm.tex.in', sometimes it is not clear how the manual will turn up because there is still the processing part. But maybe most importantly, I think docstrings and the manual should be separate entities. Which means that, by separating them, there should not be more work to manually move text from the docstrings to function definitions in the manual, but that some texts might be similar for the functions which are mentioned in the manual. _______________________________________________ Stumpwm-devel mailing list Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
