At Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:43:36 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote: > At Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:36:59 -0400, Carl Eastlund wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > At Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:30:58 -0400, Carl Eastlund wrote: > > >> If I make a require expander that generates > > >> a (planet ...) spec with appropriate version number, will Scribble > > >> "understand" that? > > > > > > Yes. Scribble just looks at `for-label' bindings, leaving it to the > > > module+macro system to create those bindings. > > > > What is different about the result of (planet ...) bindings from > > relative bindings that gives Scribble a clue as to when to provide > > links, given that both should refer to the same file at the time the > > documentation is built? > > The "given" isn't actually given. > > When you say > > planet create <dir> > > then even if <dir> and a package installation happen to be the same on > the filesystem, `planet create' doesn't access <dir> through a `planet' > path, so relative paths in <dir> are unrelated to Planet paths at the > level of module paths.
On further thought, it may not be because of the way that <dir> is accessed, but because `planet create' creates a directory to stage the package and then builds the docs out of that directory, instead of using the existing directory. (The coincidence of files accessed directly and through `planet' and `lib' paths is a little fragile, since there's no reliable way to normalize paths, but I think that's not the issue after all.) That is, `planet create' doesn't currently require the <dir> to be an installation, but if it does happen to be one, maybe that coincidence would be enough --- if the documentation were rendered using the existing document module, instead of a staged copy. Even so, we may not want to rely on that coincidence. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
