On 2022-11-04, at 06:45, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 08:03:05PM -0700, Samuel Wales wrote: >> i wonder if emacs or org has what you might call semi-literate or >> etaretil docstring functions? >> >> for example, you have a body of non-literate elisp code, and you have >> a manual. it could be redundant to describe commands and what they do >> and their options, if the docstrings are good. >> >> why not include the docstrings of all commands in some nice format in >> the .org manual via some mechanism? > > Ah. Javadoc and their descendants. I tend to call that "illiterate > programming"... I spat my tea. :-) Thanks, that's a nice one! Though this _may_ work in some cases. For example, imagine you divide your package into two files – one with user-facing commands and another one with internal functions. If you order the former one carefully, the "extract docstrings" might actually work as a documentation. Still, a "normal" documentation seems a better (even if more time-consuming) options. Also, such docstring-based documentation is still better than none. Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://mbork.pl
