[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@MIT-MC.ARPA>, COMMON-LISP@SU-AI.ARPA
- Subject: documentation strings
- From: "David A. Moon" <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 84 16:59 EDT
- In-reply-to: The message of 2 Sep 84 17:03-EDT from Kent M Pitman <KMP at MIT-MC>
Date: 2 September 1984 17:03-EDT
From: Kent M Pitman <KMP @ MIT-MC>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 84 16:47 EDT
From: "David A. Moon" <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Macros may expand into declarations. May macros expand into
.... The only happy way around it is to require documentation strings to be
visually apparent. I would support a move to allow a new declaration type
called DOCUMENTATION such that a macro wanting to provide documentation
could expand to (DECLARE (DOCUMENTATION "...")), which would not be
ambiguous in the way that "..." at toplevel would be. A doc-string at
toplevel could be magic shorthand for this declaration.
This is more or less how we implement it anyway, so I'd support this too.
Currently in my implementation macros may expand into documentation
strings, just because that's the way the code happened to work out, but
I think that this is a misfeature and will probably make the code more
complex so that it will cease to recognize strings resulting from
macroexpansion as documentation.