On 2010-02-24, at 16:19 , Robert Goldman wrote: > On 2/24/10 Feb 24 -9:09 AM, james anderson wrote: >> >> i wondered that. looks like markdown link-w/o-the-reference-id >> syntax. (is supported by docudown?) >> but then, it's not clear were it finds it's definition. (work-in- >> progress?) >> >> which brings up larger questions. >> as i was writing docstrings for de.setf.amqp, i wondered, while >> markdown is most definitely less obnoxious than html, why does a lisp >> documentation system require markup in its docstrings? >> when the documentation is processed, a closed world can be arranged. >> >> the documentation generation code - as i've read and written it, >> crawls packages and/or live images, so there's a lot it can do >> without the markup hints. given that information, it is possible to >> recognize almost every pertinent reference without the hints in terms >> of bindings on symbols present in every package reachable from the >> respective function definition minus common-lisp. > > I don't completely follow this argument. Let's say that I want to say > "see also OPERATE" in my docstring. Without /some/ form of markup, > how > do you detect that this is a cross-reference (without solving the > whole > AI problem :->)? Similarly, how do you know that this is a cross > reference to a function, instead of a type or variable?
i do follow your argument, but i do not agree with your conclusion. yes, the the reference is not context free. no, i suggest, given a coherent context, one does not have to solve the halting problem to make a reasonable quess. yes, "see also" does not add anything to the nature of a found binding. on the other hand, meta-. is mostly satisfactory - even with no context at all. and then, there is always the possibility to mediate through an index. _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel