Re: [Chicken-users] Debian packages for some eggs now available
On 13/02/2008, Ivan Raikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > >I have "debianized" a number of eggs and have uploaded the > resulting i386 binary packages to the Debian repository on > chicken.wiki.br. Information on how to access that repository is here: > > http://chicken.wiki.br/Debian packages > > The debianized eggs are mostly the prerequisites to svnwiki, plus a > few others that I use regularly. (The full list is at > http://chicken.wiki.br/debian-eggs) If you need Debian packages for > any egg, just let me know. Next, I will be working on packaging > ezxdisp and svnwiki itself. > > I have also written a script that will almost automatically build > Debian packages for all eggs that have a debian subdirectory in the > SVN repository. I say almost automatically, because not all eggs have > their documentation in the repository, so you will have to manually > copy some HTML documentation from the Chicken website to the directory > tree from which you are building. The script is called dpkg-eggs.scm > and is located in the scripts subdirectory of the main Chicken SVN > tree. > >-Ivan Nice work. I'm nearly ready to start throwing egg gentoo ebuilds at people, waiting on the final word on the install location that we're gonna use... If someone does something like your script for rpms, we'll have all most main package types covered. Bow to the chicken! \o/ Leo ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Debian packages for some eggs now available
Hi all, I have "debianized" a number of eggs and have uploaded the resulting i386 binary packages to the Debian repository on chicken.wiki.br. Information on how to access that repository is here: http://chicken.wiki.br/Debian packages The debianized eggs are mostly the prerequisites to svnwiki, plus a few others that I use regularly. (The full list is at http://chicken.wiki.br/debian-eggs) If you need Debian packages for any egg, just let me know. Next, I will be working on packaging ezxdisp and svnwiki itself. I have also written a script that will almost automatically build Debian packages for all eggs that have a debian subdirectory in the SVN repository. I say almost automatically, because not all eggs have their documentation in the repository, so you will have to manually copy some HTML documentation from the Chicken website to the directory tree from which you are building. The script is called dpkg-eggs.scm and is located in the scripts subdirectory of the main Chicken SVN tree. -Ivan ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
Well, unfortunately the wiki markup is much more limited compared to the eggdoc markup -- and I want to automate the process of converting from eggdoc to wiki as much as possible. So ideally, I would have some extensions to stream-wiki to annotate procedures, type declarations, etc. As of right now, I find the basic wiki syntax to be too spartan for egg documentation. -Ivan raymond medeiros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I was thinking that myegg.wiki would be the literal markup that svn > wiki uses. but instead of having to navigate to a page and cut and > paste your updates into a tiny text box, you could edit them in vim > and the egg builder would automatically commit a revision to the > wiki. > ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
I was thinking that myegg.wiki would be the literal markup that svn wiki uses. but instead of having to navigate to a page and cut and paste your updates into a tiny text box, you could edit them in vim and the egg builder would automatically commit a revision to the wiki. On Feb 12, 2008, at 11:41 PM, Ivan Raikov wrote: I will look at rdoc, but you should look at mole :-) I think mole follows a similar pattern, but the output formats are perhaps more limited. As for the second idea, it is okay with me, but a long time ago I wrote a proposal about incorporating eggdoc-like markup in svnwiki, and nothing happened, so I am not holding my breath. -Ivan raymond medeiros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: basically i was thinking about exactly what rdoc does ( i haven't used mole ) look at rdoc. but then adding the ability to generate wiki code and import it into the svn wiki, and also the ability to generate various formats like pdf's, html etc... another idea was, in your egg: myegg.wiki which would contain the wiki page, and get imported into svn wiki. that way the maintainer has local control over the document, but it gets automatically imported into the wiki. so you can edit it with VIM or EMACS check it in, and when the egg gets built it updates the appropriate wiki page, entering a new revision using the committers credentials. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
I will look at rdoc, but you should look at mole :-) I think mole follows a similar pattern, but the output formats are perhaps more limited. As for the second idea, it is okay with me, but a long time ago I wrote a proposal about incorporating eggdoc-like markup in svnwiki, and nothing happened, so I am not holding my breath. -Ivan raymond medeiros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > basically i was thinking about exactly what rdoc does ( i haven't > used mole ) look at rdoc. but then adding the ability to generate > wiki code and import it into the svn wiki, and also the ability to > generate various formats like pdf's, html etc... > > another idea was, in your egg: > > myegg.wiki > > which would contain the wiki page, and get imported into svn wiki. > that way the maintainer has local control over the document, > but it gets automatically imported into the wiki. so you can > edit it with VIM or EMACS check it in, and when the egg gets > built it updates the appropriate wiki page, entering a new > revision using the committers credentials. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
basically i was thinking about exactly what rdoc does ( i haven't used mole ) look at rdoc. but then adding the ability to generate wiki code and import it into the svn wiki, and also the ability to generate various formats like pdf's, html etc... another idea was, in your egg: myegg.wiki which would contain the wiki page, and get imported into svn wiki. that way the maintainer has local control over the document, but it gets automatically imported into the wiki. so you can edit it with VIM or EMACS check it in, and when the egg gets built it updates the appropriate wiki page, entering a new revision using the committers credentials. just my $0.02 in Au On Feb 12, 2008, at 11:10 PM, Ivan Raikov wrote: Well, there is already mole, but nobody seems to use that. Actually, I tried using it for my very first attempt at creating an egg, but the markup mole supports was quite limited. In general, as much as I admire Donald Knuth and everything he has done for computer science, most attempts at literate programming seem to result in almost unreadable code and documentation that is difficult to maintain. -Ivan Raymond Medeiros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: what about something similar to rdoc, inline comments in your code that get parsed out to generate documentation: chicken-doc -to-wiki openssl.egg-dir chicken-doc -to-pdf openssl.egg-dir etc...? ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
Well, there is already mole, but nobody seems to use that. Actually, I tried using it for my very first attempt at creating an egg, but the markup mole supports was quite limited. In general, as much as I admire Donald Knuth and everything he has done for computer science, most attempts at literate programming seem to result in almost unreadable code and documentation that is difficult to maintain. -Ivan Raymond Medeiros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > what about something similar to rdoc, inline comments in your code > that get parsed out to generate documentation: > > chicken-doc -to-wiki openssl.egg-dir > chicken-doc -to-pdf openssl.egg-dir > > etc...? > ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
That's a good idea. I like the distinction of community-supported vs. single-author-supported eggs. Something along those lines that could probably be done easily is to extend chicken-setup to support egg popularity counts. Each time chicken-setup is invoked to install an egg from the main Chicken page, the popularity count for that egg is increased, so that people can see which are the most commonly used eggs. This could also help with testing new releases of Chicken, because we would know which are the most important eggs to test. -Ivan John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'd rather see units and eggs treated as on a par, and the > distinction drawn between community-supported, author-supported, and > unsupported packages. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
Ivan Raikov scripsit: > There is no such thing as a "standard library" for Scheme, other > than what is defined in the R5RS standard. True for R5RS Scheme. But for Chicken in particular, the "units" are de facto a standard library, since the compiler relies on much of them. Right now all the eggs are effectively second-class as a consequence of the way they are packaged, but some of them, like syntax-case and numbers, are actually necessary to get R5RS support, so it's kind of arbitrary. I'd rather see units and eggs treated as on a par, and the distinction drawn between community-supported, author-supported, and unsupported packages. -- Is a chair finely made tragic or comic? Is the John Cowan portrait of Mona Lisa good if I desire to see [EMAIL PROTECTED] it? Is the bust of Sir Philip Crampton lyrical, http://ccil.org/~cowan epical or dramatic? If a man hacking in fury at a block of wood make there an image of a cow, is that image a work of art? If not, why not? --Stephen Dedalus ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
what about something similar to rdoc, inline comments in your code that get parsed out to generate documentation: chicken-doc -to-wiki openssl.egg-dir chicken-doc -to-pdf openssl.egg-dir etc...? On Feb 12, 2008, at 10:24 PM, Kon Lovett wrote: On Feb 12, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Ivan Raikov wrote: I don't understand why is everyone trying to come up with the Mother of all Documentation Systems all the time. For the time being, can't we just agree on having two documentation standards for Chicken: wiki (for simple documentation) and eggdoc (for complex documentation with examples, tutorials, etc.). Don't forget a 3rd, raw html. A few eggs have this for hysterical reasons; ex: coerce, uri, testbase. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users Best Wishes, Kon ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
On Feb 12, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Ivan Raikov wrote: I don't understand why is everyone trying to come up with the Mother of all Documentation Systems all the time. For the time being, can't we just agree on having two documentation standards for Chicken: wiki (for simple documentation) and eggdoc (for complex documentation with examples, tutorials, etc.). Don't forget a 3rd, raw html. A few eggs have this for hysterical reasons; ex: coerce, uri, testbase. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users Best Wishes, Kon ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
-- You are a child of the universe no less John Cowan than the trees and all other acyclichttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan graphs; you have a right to be here.[EMAIL PROTECTED] --DeXiderata by Sean McGrath go placidly amidst the noise and mailing lists, and remember what peace there may be in writing code that needs no other documentation. -elf ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:12:16 -0500 John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mario Domenech Goulart scripsit: > > > call/cc.org is the official chicken site and it is very limited > > regarding to resources. That's why it's not used for, say, the wiki > > system. > > That is, call-with-current-continuation.org. There is also callcc.org, > a fourth domain name. Ah, yes. Thanks for noticing it, John (and sorry for not mentioning it before, Toby). callcc.org (different from call/cc.org, an informal abbreviation for www.call-with-current-continuation.org) is kindly mantained by Toby Butzon. This domain is also used for the chicken bugtracking system (http://trac.callcc.org), maintained by Arto Bendiken. Best wishes, Mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
i wasnt going for the Mother of All Documentation systems. this has just been one of the primary things ive been thinking about for around a month, mostly due to chicken-man being entirely worthless. the ability to convert between formats is trivial. the hard bit has been to figure out what primitives would be useful and what sorts of constraints to impose. -elf On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Ivan Raikov wrote: I don't understand why is everyone trying to come up with the Mother of all Documentation Systems all the time. For the time being, can't we just agree on having two documentation standards for Chicken: wiki (for simple documentation) and eggdoc (for complex documentation with examples, tutorials, etc.). Then we could gradually add eggdoc-like markup to stream-wiki to the point where it would be easy to write a script that automatically converts eggdoc to wiki. Of course, this still doesn't solve the problem with not having the documentation available in the SVN repository. So any automatic operation on the repository, such as building Debian packages for the eggs cannot work without manual intervention. Unless someone has a very clear and detailed idea about to deal with this, I will ask you to defer grandiose ideas about converting all documentation in the world to the ultimate and bestest format. -Ivan Elf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: putting in my two cents (sorry for the delay, i didnt read the list today yet) ... i am working on a documentation system to replace eggdocs, straight-wiki, and chicken-man simultaneously. this is not to say or imply in any way that there wont be web files on callcc! the goal of the system is to be able to generate the documentation for chicken in any form, searchable via net or within the interpreter or as a pdf or texi or WHATEVER, while enforcing some consistency in presentation. this will (hopefully) make it easier to a) document both eggs and core, b) keep the documentation up to date, c) reduce duplication of effort, and d) reduce the learning curve. this is NOT a replacement for the wiki, however; certain things can and SHOULD be wikiised. a full (semi)formal specification will follow, hopefully later tonight. the specification is intended as an rfc, not as an elf-says-so-its-set-in-stone, obviously. -elf ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
Mario Domenech Goulart scripsit: > call/cc.org is the official chicken site and it is very limited > regarding to resources. That's why it's not used for, say, the wiki > system. That is, call-with-current-continuation.org. There is also callcc.org, a fourth domain name. -- You are a child of the universe no less John Cowan than the trees and all other acyclichttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan graphs; you have a right to be here.[EMAIL PROTECTED] --DeXiderata by Sean McGrath ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:11:36 -0600 Ozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I still haven't figured out why Chicken seems to be spread across > three different sites. > > http://galinha.ucpel.tche.br > http://chicken.wiki.br > http://www.call-with-current-continuation.org/ galinha.ucpel.tche.br and chicken.wiki.br are the same machine. galinha.ucpel.tche.br came first (since the ucpel.tche.br already existed). chicken.wiki.br was bought later. call/cc.org is the official chicken site and it is very limited regarding to resources. That's why it's not used for, say, the wiki system. Best wishes, Mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
There is no such thing as a "standard library" for Scheme, other than what is defined in the R5RS standard. And there is no such thing as "standard-issue" Scheming other than perhaps the idioms of functional programming. R5RS Scheme was deliberately designed to be minimalistic, in contrast with Perl, Python, and company. Which is why there are tons of Scheme implementations to choose from, and only one "canonical" implementation of Python. If you want a language with a bloated "standard library", then you use Python. If you want a language that doesn't suck, then you use Scheme. It took me only three weeks to go from hacking in Standard ML to writing my first Chicken Scheme egg, and I found the egg library to be rather well-organized. And I chose Chicken Scheme precisely because of the vast number of eggs available. So I don't understand why on earth you want to limit everyone's choices, because you can't be bothered to spend a couple of weeks reading some books and doing some code exercises in Scheme. -Ivan Ozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The idea I was trying to get at was something like a "standard > library" for Chicken. When I go to the "Eggs Unlimited" page right > now, there are lots and lots of eggs, which is great, except there's > no easy way to tell what's standard-issue Scheming and what's more > exotic stuff. > > It would be great if there were a set of eggs that were considered to > be a standard part of Chicken, to help people who haven't been writing > Scheme code for years get oriented. Python and Ruby have lots of > standard functionality built in, but with Chicken you have to hunt > down each egg you need. I think a standard library of sorts would > help. > > I also believe it would help to focus development. If a consensus > could be reached as to what kind of functionality should be included > in a reasonably complete standard library for a useful language, then > we could easily go about implementing that functionality. A standard > library would provide a smaller target than the current wide-open > universe of eggs. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
The whole point of the note on the wiki was that we need _one_ documentation system. The current system sucks, because you keep switching interfaces. Say you're looking for some documentation, so you search using the wiki system. However, the docs you're looking for happen to be written in eggdoc or the legacy HTML documentation. Besides not being able to search these docs, when you visit them, you go to another site and you lose the navigational tools you get in the wiki. Fair enough. I agree that one method would be best. Visually it's also confusing, because the three docs look different. This last point might sound trivial, but I'm sure when a potential new user is browsing for a new scheme implementation, he's might get scared away just because he has no idea why some docs are on this site, some on that and why they look and act differently. I know Chicken is a "hacker's scheme", but there's no point in alienating people. This I agree with 100%. I still haven't figured out why Chicken seems to be spread across three different sites. http://galinha.ucpel.tche.br http://chicken.wiki.br http://www.call-with-current-continuation.org/ > Why do you want to make a distinction? The idea I was trying to get at was something like a "standard library" for Chicken. When I go to the "Eggs Unlimited" page right now, there are lots and lots of eggs, which is great, except there's no easy way to tell what's standard-issue Scheming and what's more exotic stuff. It would be great if there were a set of eggs that were considered to be a standard part of Chicken, to help people who haven't been writing Scheme code for years get oriented. Python and Ruby have lots of standard functionality built in, but with Chicken you have to hunt down each egg you need. I think a standard library of sorts would help. I also believe it would help to focus development. If a consensus could be reached as to what kind of functionality should be included in a reasonably complete standard library for a useful language, then we could easily go about implementing that functionality. A standard library would provide a smaller target than the current wide-open universe of eggs. So these are my ideas, and I'll admit they probably don't have much to do with documentation per se, but that's just what happened to convince me to write them down. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
I don't understand why is everyone trying to come up with the Mother of all Documentation Systems all the time. For the time being, can't we just agree on having two documentation standards for Chicken: wiki (for simple documentation) and eggdoc (for complex documentation with examples, tutorials, etc.). Then we could gradually add eggdoc-like markup to stream-wiki to the point where it would be easy to write a script that automatically converts eggdoc to wiki. Of course, this still doesn't solve the problem with not having the documentation available in the SVN repository. So any automatic operation on the repository, such as building Debian packages for the eggs cannot work without manual intervention. Unless someone has a very clear and detailed idea about to deal with this, I will ask you to defer grandiose ideas about converting all documentation in the world to the ultimate and bestest format. -Ivan Elf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > putting in my two cents (sorry for the delay, i didnt read the list today yet) > ... > i am working on a documentation system to replace eggdocs, straight-wiki, and > chicken-man simultaneously. this is not to say or imply in any way that there > wont be web files on callcc! the goal of the system is to be able to generate > the documentation for chicken in any form, searchable via net or within the > interpreter or as a pdf or texi or WHATEVER, while enforcing some consistency > in presentation. this will (hopefully) make it easier to a) document > both eggs and core, b) keep the documentation up to date, c) reduce > duplication of effort, and d) reduce the learning curve. this is NOT > a replacement for the > wiki, however; certain things can and SHOULD be wikiised. > > a full (semi)formal specification will follow, hopefully later tonight. the > specification is intended as an rfc, not as an elf-says-so-its-set-in-stone, > obviously. > > -elf ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Egg Atom/RSS feed.
Since you're talking of doing work on the wiki and svn and whatnot during the hackaton and after, how about setting in hooks so you can setup a feed for egg updates later on? It'd be dead useful for anyone who (like me) is working to provide eggs in distro packaging to compete with the big Py, let alone users :) Cheers, Leo ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Comprehensive documentation rewrite
JFYI, PLT Scheme is in the midst of a similar documentation overhaul. Depending on what you think about the current intermediate state, you might see things you want to do or things that you want to avoid. We're taking the "docs source live with the library sources" approach. We haven't yet tried to put documentation inside the source, much, though that's an expected future step. New docs (work in progress): http://docs.plt-scheme.org/ Follow the "Scribble" link to get more information on the doc system. Follow the first link in the main body of the Scribble doc to see what scribbled documentation source looks like. Matthew ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
On Feb 12, 2008 11:21 AM, Peter Bex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One of the problems I see is that there are other types of objects > > besides lambdas. Everything should be able to have documentation comments (by which I mean S-exprs), not just lambdas. > Another problem is that docstrings are very limited in what you can put > in them. If you cram a tutorial in them, the source becomes unreadable > and if you keep it brief, where do you put the other docs? What's wrong with having longer docs be separate? What about coming up with a consensus on a path where such docs will be stored, so that within the documentation comments (which are part of the code) it's possible to make links to stuff like that? e.g. (see (href "eggs/myegg/tutorial")) would be analogous to a Doxygen @see directive. When the doc comments (s-exprs) are parsed and the real documentation is generated (HTML and whatever other forms) the links can be translated to full paths or relative paths, whatever works. And installing an egg should install the real documentation to a known path like /usr/share/doc/chicken/eggs/myegg. If all the documentation were in one place like that, we would not be needing to use the online documentation so much, and it would be possible to work without a network connection sometimes. (No doubt the bandwidth on callcc.org is much higher than it needs to be, just because of the lack of this.) A local index should be built too, or a local full-text search engine could be used, so that the search feature of the wiki is also replicated on every Chicken installation. Until we get around to that part, it would at least be possible to make do with whatever your usual local search engine is (Beagle, hyperestraier, swish++, mnogosearch etc.) Linux machines often have Apache configured so that http://localhost/doc goes to /usr/share/doc anyway. Some of them have search engines set up for local documentation already, too. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Comprehensive documentation rewrite
On Feb 12, 2008 10:13 AM, Tobia Conforto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My idea is to devise a "smart" document format, preferably s-expr > based (maybe SSAX-based if nothing better comes to mind) and convert > every piece of Chicken API documentation to that format: both for eggs > and for the base system. This includes any relevant SRFIs that are > part of Chicken or of some eggs. I like the idea of being able to put the documentation into the code; something like Doxygen is needed for Scheme. I think it's not the first time such an idea has been proposed, but I don't know much about what has been tried. The trouble with systems like Doxygen and JavaDoc is having to parse comments, which ordinarily are ignored. And an S-expr method provides some potential for other algorithmic purposes beyond the documentation itself. (Ideas will suggest themselves once the potential is there, no doubt.) There could start to be a coding standard/consensus just as there is with JavaDoc and Doxygen, that you write a comment block for every function, describing what it does, the parameters, etc. The author of an egg is probably often the most qualified to write the documentation; or else a close collaborator could write it (within the code) and commit to Subversion, right? So from one side the editable wiki is handy for random users that see problems with the docs and can quickly contribute the corrections, but from another, how many edits are really being done there? and it doesn't feel right to have the documentation exist separate from the code. Then it's more likely for the two to be out-of-sync. Maybe when someone edits the wiki, diffs could be sent to the author, for later insertion into the next version of the egg. But I think the regular documentation should be inline with the code, because it helps to encourage the good habit of keeping it up-to-date every time one makes a change to the code. (Sorry if I'm just stating the obvious...) ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Cygwin & "timegm"
To whom it may concern, Since it appears Cygwin has the "timegm" function since at least Jan '06 I am going to stop the inclusion of the static version in "posixwunix" for that platform. Any objections? Best Wishes, Kon ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Comprehensive documentation rewrite
We /already had this/. In the distant mists of time, we had something called 'eggdoc' which could convert to svnwiki format and Texinfo for proper navigation. But it was too hard to use, and it made community participation more difficult. It is an evolutionary dead end. It was a good decision to move away from it and to the wiki, even at the cost of some features. [You can see the pdfs from every egg available at the time here. http://3e8.org/zb/eggs/eggdoc-texinfo/output/pdf/ ] Since then I've developed my own hybrid eggdoc/wiki markup which is approximately ten thousand times easier to deal with than eggdoc, while maintaining about the same semantic load. But really, who hasn't? Parsers and doc formats are a dime a dozen; it's the infrastructure that counts. On 2/12/08, Tobia Conforto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > 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? ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] on the note of documentation...
Graham Fawcett wrote: Does anyone have a reference to a Scheme style guide? I know I've seen one, but I can't think where. This lazy Emacs user is spoiled by built-in functionality. I've been following Riastradh's Lisp Style Rules in my code: http://mumble.net/~campbell/scheme/style.txt ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Comprehensive documentation rewrite
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
Re: [Chicken-users] on the note of documentation...
i was mostly referring to headers, comments, indent style, etc :) naming is a hideous can of worms that boils down to 'it depends on exactly what youre doing and why' in most cases, outside of the obvious '? for predicates, ! for modifiers' ... although some general guidelines might not be a bad idea. theres a style guide on schemers.org wiki somewhere, that i happen to disagree with on most points :) -elf On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Graham Fawcett wrote: On Feb 12, 2008 2:12 PM, Elf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: and given that there will be an influx of people working on lots of stuff... what do people think about setting some style/indent rules/suggestions for code? For me, it's Emacs' (indent-sexp), with scheme-mode's adjustments for Scheme code. You could probably suggest a max-line-length, but beyond "use conventional Scheme indentation" I'm not sure what else you could do. Does anyone have a reference to a Scheme style guide? I know I've seen one, but I can't think where. This lazy Emacs user is spoiled by built-in functionality. On the naming of things, it would be very hard at this point in the game to enforce a prefix: naming convention across all egg procedures (as in http:GET, contrasted with the gazillion 'format' definitions). It would be helpful, iff there were also syntactic support for not requiring the prefixes when a module is "imported", as mzscheme and Common Lisp do. I've worked on a module system that addresses that, as I'm sure many others have, but we have no comprehensive solution. G ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] on the note of documentation...
On Feb 12, 2008 2:12 PM, Elf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > and given that there will be an influx of people working on lots of stuff... > what do people think about setting some style/indent rules/suggestions for > code? For me, it's Emacs' (indent-sexp), with scheme-mode's adjustments for Scheme code. You could probably suggest a max-line-length, but beyond "use conventional Scheme indentation" I'm not sure what else you could do. Does anyone have a reference to a Scheme style guide? I know I've seen one, but I can't think where. This lazy Emacs user is spoiled by built-in functionality. On the naming of things, it would be very hard at this point in the game to enforce a prefix: naming convention across all egg procedures (as in http:GET, contrasted with the gazillion 'format' definitions). It would be helpful, iff there were also syntactic support for not requiring the prefixes when a module is "imported", as mzscheme and Common Lisp do. I've worked on a module system that addresses that, as I'm sure many others have, but we have no comprehensive solution. G ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] on the note of documentation...
and given that there will be an influx of people working on lots of stuff... what do people think about setting some style/indent rules/suggestions for code? -elf ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
putting in my two cents (sorry for the delay, i didnt read the list today yet) ... i am working on a documentation system to replace eggdocs, straight-wiki, and chicken-man simultaneously. this is not to say or imply in any way that there wont be web files on callcc! the goal of the system is to be able to generate the documentation for chicken in any form, searchable via net or within the interpreter or as a pdf or texi or WHATEVER, while enforcing some consistency in presentation. this will (hopefully) make it easier to a) document both eggs and core, b) keep the documentation up to date, c) reduce duplication of effort, and d) reduce the learning curve. this is NOT a replacement for the wiki, however; certain things can and SHOULD be wikiised. a full (semi)formal specification will follow, hopefully later tonight. the specification is intended as an rfc, not as an elf-says-so-its-set-in-stone, obviously. -elf On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Graham Fawcett wrote: Ivan raised a good point on the Hackathon1 page (where he asks that people don't move his egg documentation out of the egg and into the wiki, because it's a pain to deal with eggs that don't have a copy of their docs in the egg directory itself). It's good to have the wiki docs, and especially so with Toby's excellent callcc.org site as a search interface. But it doesn't address "local" documentation very well. We've done some work on wiki->texi conversion, which is good, but it's not integrated with chicken-setup in any way, and that's a drawback. One can imagine pushing local docs into the wiki upon releasing a new egg version; or adding an "include" mechanism to the wiki to pull in external docs (though that would make search-indexing harder if not done properly). Since the wiki is stored in the svn repository, there are opportunities for svn-commit hooks to do some of the work, as well as opportunities for a decent inclusion mechanism. Before we venture too far into 'wikifying' all of the egg documentation, if that's a hackathon goal, we should probably ensure that we have a consistent documentation plan that ensures a local copy of the docs is preserved in some form. Personally, I'd love to have texi documentation, and (optionally) have chicken-setup do the necessary work to pull egg docs into the 'info' system. I'd never have to leave Emacs to look something up, and that would (for me) be more efficient than keeping a callcc.org browser open. Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Comprehensive documentation rewrite
Hi Graham and folks, On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:34:02 -0500 "Graham Fawcett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12 Feb 2008 15:54:32 -0200, Mario Domenech Goulart > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Tobia, > > > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:37:36 +0100 Tobia Conforto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: > > > > Would it be integrated to the wiki system? > > > > > > How much and what kind of integration do we need? > > > > It would be nice if a regular user could edit the documentation like > > he/she would do with the current wiki system. > > 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. Personally, I've never modified the documentation > of someone else's egg; perhaps if I saw a typo, but even then I would > contact the author, in case they kept the documentation in a secondary > form. I think the wiki system has a great value and it is one of the reasons why chicken has such a rich documentation and a nice user base. There are other things besides documentation of eggs and chicken that are also on the wiki (e.g., tips and tricks, code snippets, users pages etc). Those pages are not necessarily edited by developers and are very important for the project. If we want non-developers to edit pages, they'd need an svn account. This would either be impractical (an svn account for each contributing user) or would be another barrier for contributions. Eliminating one way of editing chicken docs (i.e., via web-browser) doesn't add anything, but makes contributions more difficult and less practical. I do frequently use the web interface for editing the wiki, for example -- specially when I'm using a machine with no svn client (most computers have a web-browser) or I when I just don't want to checkout the wiki tree, open a text editor, commit etc. It's true that developers are able to edit and probably would feel more confortable editing sexprs, but unfortunately (as far as I know), svnwiki doesn't understand sexprs as input language. A simple solution for those who want to edit sexprs locally would be implementing a simple sexpr->wiki translator and use it to generate input files for svnwiki. It would be a nice egg, BTW (maybe an output format eggdoc could generate). Best wishes, Mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Comprehensive documentation rewrite
On Feb 12, 2008 1:28 PM, Mark Fredrickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps before we decide where data should live, what format, etc, we > should come up with a list of requirements that we want to meet? > Here's my attempt at cataloging what I've heard so far: > > 4. Users should be able to update data via wiki system [2] I have the utmost respect for the wiki developers and maintainers. But having said that, I don't think we should include it as a formal requirement. If it fits, great; if it doesn't, let's find something that solves the problem. Your other points look solid, Mark. G ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Comprehensive documentation rewrite
On 12 Feb 2008 15:54:32 -0200, Mario Domenech Goulart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Tobia, > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:37:36 +0100 Tobia Conforto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: > > > Would it be integrated to the wiki system? > > > > How much and what kind of integration do we need? > > It would be nice if a regular user could edit the documentation like > he/she would do with the current wiki system. 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. Personally, I've never modified the documentation of someone else's egg; perhaps if I saw a typo, but even then I would contact the author, in case they kept the documentation in a secondary form. G ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Comprehensive documentation rewrite
Perhaps before we decide where data should live, what format, etc, we should come up with a list of requirements that we want to meet? Here's my attempt at cataloging what I've heard so far: 0. Data should not be duplicated. Duplicated data will get out of date, fork, etc. 1. Data should be easy to translate into different formats (potentially wiki, texi, SXML, HTML, man pages, others) [1] 2. Data should be available off-line. 3. Data should come with egg. 4. Users should be able to update data via wiki system [2] 5. Data should apply to more than just lambdas/procedures 6. Presentation of data (at least online) should be consistent [1] For each format F, this requirement implies a mapping from data D -> F. Do we also need a mapping from F -> D, so that if a user changes F the original data can be updated? [2] I think this is related to [1]. If we change the wiki (a representation) does the original data change? Also, there are some permissions and branching issues here if the document data is stored in the egg. E.g. should all users get to update the wiki documentation? Is the wiki branched such that documentation changes in one branch do not inappropriately change other branches? --- Other requirements? -Mark ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 03:16:35PM -0200, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:52:02 -0600 "Mark Fredrickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > This idea dove tails with discussion last week of providing docstrings
> > for lambdas. Felix pointed out that there is a hook to capture lambda
> > documentation. Will this work for documenting eggs, which might also
> > have data types, parameters, other info?
>
> I'm not sure if that's a good way to provide full documentation for
> eggs and chicken.
I don't think so either.
> One of the problems I see is that there are other types of objects
> besides lambdas.
Another problem is that docstrings are very limited in what you can put
in them. If you cram a tutorial in them, the source becomes unreadable
and if you keep it brief, where do you put the other docs?
Another thing is that docstrings are even less semantically rich than
the wiki. They're just plain text, no way to hyperref ('see also'),
no way to refer to arguments/function names etc.
If you have semantically rich content you could do really cool stuff
like making a context-sensitive help like you see in some modern IDEs
for other languages etc.
> The full documentation for eggs and chicken itself is more than the
> documentation of procedures and other objects. There are examples,
> authors, license sections etc, which are not source code.
Yep, that too.
> I'm afraid merging two sources of documentation (from source code
> files and, I guess, manually written doc files) can lead to confusion
> and "kludgeness".
I'm afraid of that too.
Cheers,
Peter
--
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
experience much like composing poetry or music."
-- Donald Knuth
pgpS0oKNe9Agv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:10:28AM -0600, Ozzi wrote: > This is perhaps a different concern, but I wonder if there would be value in > designating certain eggs as "part of" Chicken, and holding these eggs to a > stricter standard of documentation. Why do you want to make a distinction? The whole point of the note on the wiki was that we need _one_ documentation system. The current system sucks, because you keep switching interfaces. Say you're looking for some documentation, so you search using the wiki system. However, the docs you're looking for happen to be written in eggdoc or the legacy HTML documentation. Besides not being able to search these docs, when you visit them, you go to another site and you lose the navigational tools you get in the wiki. Visually it's also confusing, because the three docs look different. This last point might sound trivial, but I'm sure when a potential new user is browsing for a new scheme implementation, he's might get scared away just because he has no idea why some docs are on this site, some on that and why they look and act differently. I know Chicken is a "hacker's scheme", but there's no point in alienating people. So, to conclude, I don't mind _what_ we're going to do, as long as it's consistent and pleasant to use (both as doc author and reader). Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth pgpUM54Wc6beV.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Comprehensive documentation rewrite
Hi Tobia, On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:37:36 +0100 Tobia Conforto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: > > Would it be integrated to the wiki system? > > How much and what kind of integration do we need? It would be nice if a regular user could edit the documentation like he/she would do with the current wiki system. > Supposing we translate the parts of the Wiki that contain API and/or > egg documentation to this format, we may (or may not) provide a web > form to edit said semantic documentation format directly. > > We may require the api or reference parts to be written in this > format, committed to svn, and used to generate the various "compiled > references", while leaving free-form tutorials and random pieces of > documentation on the wiki. Wouldn't it be simpler to extend svnwiki so it can understand some special tags? Best wishes, Mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Comprehensive documentation rewrite
Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: Would it be integrated to the wiki system? How much and what kind of integration do we need? Supposing we translate the parts of the Wiki that contain API and/or egg documentation to this format, we may (or may not) provide a web form to edit said semantic documentation format directly. We may require the api or reference parts to be written in this format, committed to svn, and used to generate the various "compiled references", while leaving free-form tutorials and random pieces of documentation on the wiki. Tobia ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Comprehensive documentation rewrite
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:13:56 +0100 Tobia Conforto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: > > From a known format, we can convert the wiki documentation to > > whatever format we need and even have an interactive documentation > > system. The current problem with the wiki documentation is that we > > don't have semantic markup. > > This is a good time to talk about a similar idea I've been having for > a while. > > My idea is to devise a "smart" document format, preferably s-expr > based (maybe SSAX-based if nothing better comes to mind) and convert > every piece of Chicken API documentation to that format: both for eggs > and for the base system. This includes any relevant SRFIs that are > part of Chicken or of some eggs. > > It's quite a lot of text, but it shouldn't be too hard, if you're > armed with a good text editor and regexes. > > This should make it relatively easy to generate any kind of > documentation from a single, versioned source tree: > - static, heavy-hyperlinked html with full indexes by symbol, by > permuted symbol, by topic (tags), by egg... > - dynamic html documentation, aka. API search engine on the site > - texi (or whatever it is... I'm a Vim user so I wouldn't know :-) > > I'm ready to start working on this, if we agree it's a good thing, and > after we've discussed the s-expr file format. I'm still just a > Chicken user (not a hacker) but this job is certainly within my reach! Would it be integrated to the wiki system? Best wishes, Mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
Hi Mark, On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:52:02 -0600 "Mark Fredrickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This idea dove tails with discussion last week of providing docstrings > for lambdas. Felix pointed out that there is a hook to capture lambda > documentation. Will this work for documenting eggs, which might also > have data types, parameters, other info? I'm not sure if that's a good way to provide full documentation for eggs and chicken. One of the problems I see is that there are other types of objects besides lambdas. The full documentation for eggs and chicken itself is more than the documentation of procedures and other objects. There are examples, authors, license sections etc, which are not source code. I'm afraid merging two sources of documentation (from source code files and, I guess, manually written doc files) can lead to confusion and "kludgeness". Best wishes, Mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Comprehensive documentation rewrite
Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: From a known format, we can convert the wiki documentation to whatever format we need and even have an interactive documentation system. The current problem with the wiki documentation is that we don't have semantic markup. This is a good time to talk about a similar idea I've been having for a while. My idea is to devise a "smart" document format, preferably s-expr based (maybe SSAX-based if nothing better comes to mind) and convert every piece of Chicken API documentation to that format: both for eggs and for the base system. This includes any relevant SRFIs that are part of Chicken or of some eggs. It's quite a lot of text, but it shouldn't be too hard, if you're armed with a good text editor and regexes. This should make it relatively easy to generate any kind of documentation from a single, versioned source tree: - static, heavy-hyperlinked html with full indexes by symbol, by permuted symbol, by topic (tags), by egg... - dynamic html documentation, aka. API search engine on the site - texi (or whatever it is... I'm a Vim user so I wouldn't know :-) I'm ready to start working on this, if we agree it's a good thing, and after we've discussed the s-expr file format. I'm still just a Chicken user (not a hacker) but this job is certainly within my reach! Tobia ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
This is perhaps a different concern, but I wonder if there would be value in designating certain eggs as "part of" Chicken, and holding these eggs to a stricter standard of documentation. For example, most (all?) of the SRFIs could be considered canon. I'd imagine Spiffy would as well, along with many other eggs. Something like ode, a "numerical solver framework for systems of first-order differential equations", on the other hand, probably wouldn't. This distinction would allow us to dictate, for example, that all documentation for the eggs which are a part of Chicken has to be written in a certain style and available in a certain place, without messing with libraries that are made available as eggs but aren't really designed as a part of Chicken itself. Oz Graham Fawcett wrote: Ivan raised a good point on the Hackathon1 page (where he asks that people don't move his egg documentation out of the egg and into the wiki, because it's a pain to deal with eggs that don't have a copy of their docs in the egg directory itself). It's good to have the wiki docs, and especially so with Toby's excellent callcc.org site as a search interface. But it doesn't address "local" documentation very well. We've done some work on wiki->texi conversion, which is good, but it's not integrated with chicken-setup in any way, and that's a drawback. One can imagine pushing local docs into the wiki upon releasing a new egg version; or adding an "include" mechanism to the wiki to pull in external docs (though that would make search-indexing harder if not done properly). Since the wiki is stored in the svn repository, there are opportunities for svn-commit hooks to do some of the work, as well as opportunities for a decent inclusion mechanism. Before we venture too far into 'wikifying' all of the egg documentation, if that's a hackathon goal, we should probably ensure that we have a consistent documentation plan that ensures a local copy of the docs is preserved in some form. Personally, I'd love to have texi documentation, and (optionally) have chicken-setup do the necessary work to pull egg docs into the 'info' system. I'd never have to leave Emacs to look something up, and that would (for me) be more efficient than keeping a callcc.org browser open. Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
This idea dove tails with discussion last week of providing docstrings for lambdas. Felix pointed out that there is a hook to capture lambda documentation. Will this work for documenting eggs, which might also have data types, parameters, other info? Texi seems like a reasonable standard to me, FWIW. Cheers, -M > I think the best alternative would be having svnwiki tags to markup > chicken docs (which is possible). > > Something like: > > > This is foo > > > From a known format, we can convert the wiki documentation to whatever > format we need and even have an interactive documentation system. The > current problem with the wiki documentation is that we don't have > semantic markup. > > Best wishes, > Mario > > > > > ___ > Chicken-users mailing list > Chicken-users@nongnu.org > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users > ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] gmtime & Cygwin
To whom it may concern, I just installed Cygwin & noticed that it supports 'timegm'. The posixunix.scm file has a static replacement for that platform. Should it be removed? Best Wishes, Kon ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] egg documentation
Hi Graham and folks, On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:32:26 -0500 "Graham Fawcett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ivan raised a good point on the Hackathon1 page (where he asks that > people don't move his egg documentation out of the egg and into the > wiki, because it's a pain to deal with eggs that don't have a copy of > their docs in the egg directory itself). > > It's good to have the wiki docs, and especially so with Toby's > excellent callcc.org site as a search interface. But it doesn't > address "local" documentation very well. We've done some work on > wiki->texi conversion, which is good, but it's not integrated with > chicken-setup in any way, and that's a drawback. > > One can imagine pushing local docs into the wiki upon releasing a new > egg version; or adding an "include" mechanism to the wiki to pull in > external docs (though that would make search-indexing harder if not > done properly). Since the wiki is stored in the svn repository, there > are opportunities for svn-commit hooks to do some of the work, as well > as opportunities for a decent inclusion mechanism. > > Before we venture too far into 'wikifying' all of the egg > documentation, if that's a hackathon goal, we should probably ensure > that we have a consistent documentation plan that ensures a local copy > of the docs is preserved in some form. > > Personally, I'd love to have texi documentation, and (optionally) have > chicken-setup do the necessary work to pull egg docs into the 'info' > system. I'd never have to leave Emacs to look something up, and that > would (for me) be more efficient than keeping a callcc.org browser > open. I think the best alternative would be having svnwiki tags to markup chicken docs (which is possible). Something like: This is foo >From a known format, we can convert the wiki documentation to whatever format we need and even have an interactive documentation system. The current problem with the wiki documentation is that we don't have semantic markup. Best wishes, Mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] egg documentation
Ivan raised a good point on the Hackathon1 page (where he asks that people don't move his egg documentation out of the egg and into the wiki, because it's a pain to deal with eggs that don't have a copy of their docs in the egg directory itself). It's good to have the wiki docs, and especially so with Toby's excellent callcc.org site as a search interface. But it doesn't address "local" documentation very well. We've done some work on wiki->texi conversion, which is good, but it's not integrated with chicken-setup in any way, and that's a drawback. One can imagine pushing local docs into the wiki upon releasing a new egg version; or adding an "include" mechanism to the wiki to pull in external docs (though that would make search-indexing harder if not done properly). Since the wiki is stored in the svn repository, there are opportunities for svn-commit hooks to do some of the work, as well as opportunities for a decent inclusion mechanism. Before we venture too far into 'wikifying' all of the egg documentation, if that's a hackathon goal, we should probably ensure that we have a consistent documentation plan that ensures a local copy of the docs is preserved in some form. Personally, I'd love to have texi documentation, and (optionally) have chicken-setup do the necessary work to pull egg docs into the 'info' system. I'd never have to leave Emacs to look something up, and that would (for me) be more efficient than keeping a callcc.org browser open. Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Hackathon!
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:37:00 +0100 Peter Bex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In light of the recent announcement by Felix and some people's concerns that > the project may get into a bit of a slump with a lack of a single Benevolent > Dictator, I decided that it would be a good idea to organize a Hackathon. > This will be an excellent opportunity for the community to get involved and > pick up on anything that we've all come to take for granted Felix (and other > core committers) would take care of. > > For those unfamiliar with Hackathons, I've seen and participated in a couple > of hackathons from the NetBSD project > (http://www.netbsd.org/community/hackathon.html) where each was a smashing > success. The idea is that everyone (hackers AND users) gets together on IRC > (irc.freenode.net, #chicken) in a weekend and work on "boring" or routine > things that have been lying around and just need to get done. To stress, > this is _not_ about adding major new features, it's just about consolidating > what's already there, ie fixing bugs, weeding through bugreports, testing etc. Very good idea, Peter. > I propose to hold the hackathon on the weekend of 22-23 February. Suggestions > of different dates are welcome. A wiki page has been created at > http://chicken.wiki.br/Hackathon1 with some initial suggestions of things to > work on. Please feel free to add suggestions to it. As I've stated before, > _anyone_ is free to help out! Don't be shy, even if you have zero experience > hacking Chicken you can help out with documentation or testing of new > features. Yet another form of contribution is creating a user page at http://chicken.wiki.br/users (it doesn't necessarily need to be done during the hackaton, obviously. I just used Peter's message as a hook). :-) Best wishes, Mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Hackathon!
It turns out that (doc-from-wiki #t) is also a valid form, so there are a few false matches in my list. I leave the grep fix as an exercise for the reader; I'm going to get caffeinated now. G ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Hackathon!
On Feb 12, 2008 9:43 AM, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Looking at the trunk for each egg, that gives us the following eggs > which do not have Wiki docs. Not all of these eggs have actually been > published though. Argh, ignore that last script. I really need coffee. $ find . -name "*.meta" | xargs grep -L "(doc-from-wiki)" | sed -n "s|./\(.*\)/trunk.*|\1|p" | sort | xargs echo alexpander apr array-lib atlas-lapack blas bloom-filter cgi-util curl digraph dyn-vector endian-port etxtproc extended-cond format-graph format-textdiff gdb glfw graph-bfs graph-cycles graph-dfs graph-scc grobner-basis gtk2 gtk2-glade gtk2-gobject hashes html-plots input-parse interp1d irnc-base iup lalr libsvm lookup-table mat5-lib matrix-utils mayo mime misc-extn mpd-client mpi mysql nordsieck-vector npdiff ode ode-lmm orders patch plist-utils predicate-calculus probdist pyffi random-mtzig random-swb random-test rb-tree s11n sendfile sfht sigma slang sql sqlite3 sqlite3-tinyclos srfi-27 srfi-38 srfi-4-utils SSAX-Project stream-flash stream-flash-tree-map stream-flash-tree-map/stream-flash-tree-map stream-htpasswd stream-httplog svn-post-commit-hooks tinyclos treap unitconv uri xml-rpc Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Hackathon!
On Feb 12, 2008 3:19 AM, Peter Bex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 08:50:02PM -0500, Raymond Medeiros wrote: > > is it possible to get a list of all eggs which do not currently have > > their documentation in the wiki? > > then we could start migrating the doc to the wiki. > Yeah, it's easy. Just look through the Eggs Unlimited page and > see what links point to call/cc.org > Or, when you have subversion checkout, see what eggs DON'T have > (doc-from-wiki) in their .meta file. Looking at the trunk for each egg, that gives us the following eggs which do not have Wiki docs. Not all of these eggs have actually been published though. Graham ~/chicken-eggs/release/3$ find . -name "*.meta" | xargs grep -lv "(doc-from-wiki)" | sed -n "s|./\(.*\)/trunk.*|\1|p" | sort 9p alexpander apr array-lib atlas-lapack blas bloom-filter cgi-util content-type contexts curl daemon-tools date-literals defun-cond dict digraph dyn-vector endian-port estraier etxtproc extended-cond format-graph format-modular format-textdiff fp fspath gdb geoip gettext glc glfw graph-bfs graph-cycles graph-dfs graph-scc grobner-basis gsl-srfi-27 gtk2 gtk2-glade gtk2-gobject hart hashes html-plots html-stream http http-session iconv input-parse interp1d irnc-base iup kvlists lalr libsvm lookup-table mat5-lib matpak matrix-utils mayo memcached message-digest metaweb mime misc-extn modules mpd-client mpeg3 mpi mysql nest-tool nordsieck-vector npdiff ode ode-lmm orders pairing-heap pairing-heap/branches/unsafe patch php-s11n plist-utils predicate-calculus probdist procedure-decoration pyffi random-mtzig random-swb random-test rb-tree rdf-ntriples regex-extras regex-literals s11n salmonella scheme-dissect sendfile sfht sigma slang slib slib SO31 spiffy sql sqlite3 sqlite3-tinyclos srfi-27 srfi-34 srfi-38 srfi-41 srfi-4-utils SSAX-Project stream-cgi stream-ext stream-flash stream-flash-tree-map stream-flash-tree-map/stream-flash-tree-map stream-htpasswd stream-httplog stream-parser stream-sections stream-wiki svn-client svn-post-commit-hooks tinyclos treap unitconv uri uri-literals uri-namespaces web-scheme web-unity wings xml-rpc ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Hackathon!
count me in for sure! -elf On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Peter Bex wrote: Hello everyone, In light of the recent announcement by Felix and some people's concerns that the project may get into a bit of a slump with a lack of a single Benevolent Dictator, I decided that it would be a good idea to organize a Hackathon. This will be an excellent opportunity for the community to get involved and pick up on anything that we've all come to take for granted Felix (and other core committers) would take care of. For those unfamiliar with Hackathons, I've seen and participated in a couple of hackathons from the NetBSD project (http://www.netbsd.org/community/hackathon.html) where each was a smashing success. The idea is that everyone (hackers AND users) gets together on IRC (irc.freenode.net, #chicken) in a weekend and work on "boring" or routine things that have been lying around and just need to get done. To stress, this is _not_ about adding major new features, it's just about consolidating what's already there, ie fixing bugs, weeding through bugreports, testing etc. I propose to hold the hackathon on the weekend of 22-23 February. Suggestions of different dates are welcome. A wiki page has been created at http://chicken.wiki.br/Hackathon1 with some initial suggestions of things to work on. Please feel free to add suggestions to it. As I've stated before, _anyone_ is free to help out! Don't be shy, even if you have zero experience hacking Chicken you can help out with documentation or testing of new features. Cheers, Peter ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Hackathon!
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 08:50:02PM -0500, Raymond Medeiros wrote: > > is it possible to get a list of all eggs which do not currently have > their documentation in the wiki? > then we could start migrating the doc to the wiki. Yeah, it's easy. Just look through the Eggs Unlimited page and see what links point to call/cc.org Or, when you have subversion checkout, see what eggs DON'T have (doc-from-wiki) in their .meta file. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth pgpvy9y0n7kf7.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
