I have fixed the problem now. Please test it if you have the chance.
Regards,
Elias
On 17 July 2014 08:02, David Lamkins da...@lamkins.net wrote:
Picking up the function name at point doesn't quite work; it stops at _.
You may want to make sure that all valid APL break characters {_⍙∆¯} are
Thank you. Confirmed fixed.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Elias Mårtenson loke...@gmail.com wrote:
I have fixed the problem now. Please test it if you have the chance.
Regards,
Elias
On 17 July 2014 08:02, David Lamkins da...@lamkins.net wrote:
Picking up the function name at point
Well, that would be great too. My parsing of the comments right now is very
simple, and I can easily change it if a different approach is proposed.
If anything more complex than just a simple block of text is decided upon,
I can add features to the Emacs mode to provide syntax highlighting and
Picking up the function name at point doesn't quite work; it stops at _.
You may want to make sure that all valid APL break characters {_⍙∆¯} are
recognized.
Did you consider trimming the local variables list? To me, that doesn't
seem especially useful in a documentation buffer.
On Wed, Jul 16,
Thank you. I didn't think of doing that. I will fix that today.
Regards,
Elias
On 17 Jul 2014 08:02, David Lamkins da...@lamkins.net wrote:
Picking up the function name at point doesn't quite work; it stops at _.
You may want to make sure that all valid APL break characters {_⍙∆¯} are
Most modern (and some not-so-modern) languages have a standard way of
attaching documentation to functions and other symbols. For example, in
Java documentation looks like this:
*/***
* * Example method that adds 1 to its argument. The documentation*
* * is a normal comment that comes
On 2014-07-14 00:01:13, Elias Mårtenson wrote:
Most modern (and some not-so-modern) languages have a standard way of
attaching
documentation to functions and other symbols.
(...)
I think the most natural way to describe a function is simply by
starting function *body* with a comment:
∇
Common Lisp has doc strings as part of the language definition. There's
a mechanism defined as part of the language to read the doc string and
stash it in the function definition so that the appropriate access
functions can find it.
There's really no equivalent to this in APL. A function definion
I like this idea a lot. Having the comment inside the function allows you
to edit the text when using the Emacs function editor. If the comment is
outside, it won't be part of the function per se.
Secondly, as David pointed out, one can already access the comment from APL
if it is inside the
