Graham Fawcett wrote:
In our audience, a regular user might not be averse to editing a
sexpr. I really like the wiki philosophy, but I confess I'd much
rather do semantic markup with sexprs than somewhat arbitrary wiki
tags. I have good tools for navigating sexprs. ;-)
Most developers are already working in the svn repo. I would be more
inclined to edit my egg's wiki page in the repo, rather than through
the Web interface. Given that, the wiki really becomes more of a
place for comments and typographic corrections, which might be
better suited to a formal "comments" section at the bottom of the
egg's documentation page.
Well said.
This is exactly the spirit I was trying to express.
A semantically rich sexpr-based documentation format that could be
updated with your text editor and committed through svn, following
branches, tags, etc.
Imagine an online (and partly offline) help system where every symbol
is a hyperlink, every procedure is tagged by interest (so you may
browse at all the lambdas that have something to do with ports, and
then with threads, filter out some unwanted eggs...) No more drowning
in the sea of SRFI and was this in extra or in posix?
Also, every page, both indexes and detail pages alike, would be
browsable by Chicken version (svn branch, that is.) Was this there in
the old times of 3.0? Was the API different?
Every procedure and/or every egg might have a comment section at the
bottom.
All the rest of the documentation that's not strictly API reference
(such as tips & tricks, examples, users' pages, generic docs...) they
can stay where they are, but we can make the wiki and the new hyperdoc
as seamless as possible, with matching visual styles, the same site
navigation and facilities for cross-linking.
Tobia
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
