Nice! I didn't realize chicken-doc-admin was even a thing, and this
ability should make updating docs much easier to do.
When next I get around to updating the allegro egg from 5.06 to 5.09 and
fixing the library discovery bug I'll see about also switching over to
using this to manage the docu
Hi,
It is now possible to break up egg documentation into several pages. This was
previously possible on the wiki, but is now supported by chicken-doc as well.
Procedure: instead of creating a file, create a directory and populate it with
subpage files. To document the main page, call the pag
On 2008 Feb 21, at 23:57, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
As such, I will need more convincing before implementing support for
. I don't see what it adds that we can't already do. Ok,
I see that it would allow arbitrary pages to declare sub-topics of a
given topic, but I don't think that should
> Here's my suggested syntax, keeping it XML-compliant:
>
> [bold="yes|no"] [see="other topic"]/>
Hmm, I think this would be very redundant with the following syntax,
which not only is already support, I also find easier to type:
> == List procedures
>
> ...
>
> === Append
>
On 2008 Feb 21, at 03:38, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
Sure, good thinking. I've created this document:
http://chicken.wiki.br/wiki-syntax-chicken
...
Suggestions would be appreciated. :-)
The page is much appreciated, and I now have a much better vision of
how the markup is
going.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Some day, we might want to offer an alternate way of marking which
> > procs should be indexed, or providing a formal exports list, like the
> > (declare ) form but for interpreted files as well. That would cover
> > th
Sorry, forgot to answer some of your questions:
> (wiki-db-update-symbols! db-file base-path file-path) -> boolean
>
> Would the absolute file pathname be (make-pathname base-path file-
> path)?
Yes.
> The "file" column is what? An absolute pathname, a relative pathname,
> a filename w/ exte
On Feb 21, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Graham Fawcett wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Alejandro Forero Cuervo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is that possible, given that reading the Scheme file may require
custom syntax?
It may not be possible to do it reliably, but if we get just 50% of
the ca
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Alejandro Forero Cuervo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is that possible, given that reading the Scheme file may require
> > custom syntax?
>
> It may not be possible to do it reliably, but if we get just 50% of
> the cases right, that's an improvement. I suspect
> Is that possible, given that reading the Scheme file may require
> custom syntax?
It may not be possible to do it reliably, but if we get just 50% of
the cases right, that's an improvement. I suspect with some lovin' we
should be able to get 90% or so. :-)
Alejo.
http://azul.freaks-unidos.net
> I will take on this burden ;-)
>
> (wiki-db-update-symbols! db-file base-path file-path) -> boolean
>
> Would the absolute file pathname be (make-pathname base-path file-
> path)? Or is is file-path not relative? (If it isn't why the base path?)
>
> The "file" column is what? An absolute path
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > could someone create a function that receives (1) a base path
> > containing a checkout of the chicken-eggs svn repository, (2) a path
> > to some file inside the repository and (3) a sqlite3 database with
> > said table
On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
Given the following SQL table:
CREATE TABLE symbols (
symbol varchar,
file varchar,
line integer );
could someone create a function that receives (1) a base path
containing a checkout of the chicken-eggs svn repository
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Alejandro Forero Cuervo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given the following SQL table:
>
> CREATE TABLE symbols (
> symbol varchar,
> file varchar,
> line integer );
>
> could someone create a function that receives (1) a base path
> containing a checko
Given the following SQL table:
CREATE TABLE symbols (
symbol varchar,
file varchar,
line integer );
could someone create a function that receives (1) a base path
containing a checkout of the chicken-eggs svn repository, (2) a path
to some file inside the repository and (3) a sqlite3
Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
I think it would be overkill if we did it on a procedure-by-
procedure basis. It would make editing a bit cumbersome for what it
gets us, I think.
I don't know, I think that a topic system with egg granularity
wouldn't be of much use. We already have egg cate
> What about the topics="" attribute we discussed a few days ago?
Ooops, sorry, I forgot about that attribute.
I think it would be overkill if we did it on a procedure-by-procedure
basis. It would make editing a bit cumbersome for what it gets us, I
think.
> Is that going to be , or did I misu
Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
I've created this document: http://chicken.wiki.br/wiki-syntax-chicken
Note that I've expanded and to and
respectively.
I've also added a bit more details about how to include examples. I
expect to automatically build a page including all the examples an
Sorry, that previous mail was so eager to go out —it couldn't wait, oh
no, it was too good for that— that it managed to escape before I could
finish it.
So, the support for the new tags will be added by extending the
chicken.scm extension used by the stream-wiki code. This extension
currently def
> So, will the stream-wiki egg be updated accordingly? The post-commit
> stuff does a wiki->html conversion, so we have to get access to
> the new markup.
This will be done by adding code to the chicken.scm file (which is
already used by the post-commit stuff for the tag.
Alejo.
http://azul.frea
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Alejandro Forero Cuervo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm losing sight of the changes a bit. Could you please update the
> > wiki-syntax doc so we have something to work with for the hackathon?
>
> Sure, good thinking. I've created this document:
>
> http://
> I'm losing sight of the changes a bit. Could you please update the
> wiki-syntax doc so we have something to work with for the hackathon?
Sure, good thinking. I've created this document:
http://chicken.wiki.br/wiki-syntax-chicken
Note that I've expanded and to and
respectively.
I've a
On 2/21/08, Alejandro Forero Cuervo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I'll add support for , and .
>
> Does that sound good to you?
Sure. If it's a problem in practice, we can always fix it later.
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:42:00AM -0800, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
> I think this wouldn't be very hard to do, since they would all behave
> pretty much in the same way. We can probably just keep a list with
> them (ie. '(string class method)) that we add to as needed.
>
> That is, I think
> > What if instead of and
> > we simply use ? Would that work?
>
> Functionally yes, but I can only think of one person who has ever
> used 'string' in an egg: myself. In my opinion, the tag
> should be there for really unusual cases such as that, since
> we can't think of every type of defin
On 2/21/08, Alejandro Forero Cuervo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we should stick to , and so on. They are easier
> to type than , and so on.
I agree.
> What if instead of and
> we simply use ? Would that work?
Functionally yes, but I can only think of one person who has ever
used 'st
> On 2/19/08, Alejandro Forero Cuervo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alright. I suppose I'll highlight the procedure name and make sure it
> > gets typeset in monospaced font, as:
> >
> > [procedure] {{('''proc''' a b)}}
>
> I would like it if that line were wrapped in a e.g.
> ... so that it can
> On 2/19/08, Jim Ursetto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > doctype:xhtml-1.0-strict
>
> Thinking about this a little more, it strikes me that
> "definition" or "def" is probably a better tag than "signature".
> So:
>
> doctype:xhtml-1.0-strict
>
> for unusual definitions we don't provide a built-i
On 2/19/08, Jim Ursetto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> doctype:xhtml-1.0-strict
Thinking about this a little more, it strikes me that
"definition" or "def" is probably a better tag than "signature".
So:
doctype:xhtml-1.0-strict
for unusual definitions we don't provide a built-in tag for.
You coul
On 2/19/08, Alejandro Forero Cuervo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alright. I suppose I'll highlight the procedure name and make sure it
> gets typeset in monospaced font, as:
>
> [procedure] {{('''proc''' a b)}}
I would like it if that line were wrapped in a e.g.
... so that it can be styled via C
Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
My secret plan is to eventually sneak in support for some
... tags along with the
and perhaps tags and then reorganize some of my eggs as wiki
pages from which the scm files are generated
The horror! :-)
Tobia
___
> and look good. The wiki pages use either
> '''procedure:''' (proc a b) or
> [procedure] (proc a b)
>
> depending on the author, so the rendering is up to you.
Alright. I suppose I'll highlight the procedure name and make sure it
gets typeset in monospaced font, as:
[procedure] {
and look good. The wiki pages use either
'''procedure:''' (proc a b) or
[procedure] (proc a b)
depending on the author, so the rendering is up to you.
On 2/19/08, Alejandro Forero Cuervo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > eggdoc:doctype
> Is this meant to be used as in "The procedure s
> So ultimately, I think something like the following tags would be useful:
Thanks for the list! :-)
> (string-set! a b)
Alright, I will simply expand this to:
[procedure] {{('''string-set!''' a b)}}
> (args:make-option (OPTION-NAME ...) ARG-DATA [BODY])
I'll expand this to the same as the a
I'll also update eggdoc-svnwiki with the new syntax (or whatever final
form it takes) once that gets put in the wiki.
And in that vein:
The four types of definitions in eggdoc are "procedure",
"macro", "record" and "parameter", with an extra "signature" type which
is used when you want to name a
Oh, okay, this looks pretty good. Not as pretty as the original
eggdoc, but it will do. I will try converting some of my docs with
eggdoc-svnwiki this weekend, thanks.
-Ivan
"Jim Ursetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ivan,
>
> The symbol-table is essentially a nod to aesthetics--it jus
> By the way, on the subject of wiki markup, I'd like to put in a plug
> for marking index entries.
Hmm, what do you mean?
Alejo, a bit slow today.
http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.non
On 2008 Feb 17, at 06:15, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
...
Documentation for egg foobar should live in the chicken-eggs
repository, in wiki/foobar, in wiki format with some extensions for
including semantics. By this I mean wiki syntax using tags such as
... , from where some semantics can
The problem is that the .html files generated from the wiki files
are not present in the repository. So any scripts that traverse the
egg directories and do stuff with the eggs would not have the
_rendered_ documentation accessible. For example, I want to be able to
run a script that builds Debi
> In the example below,
> some will remark that you've no longer wrapped the procedure
> description in a tag. However, any reasonable parser should be able
> to reconstruct this information heuristically--after all, we don't
> require the user to wrap entire wiki sections in tags; we simply
> rec
On 2/17/08, Ivan Raikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, it is not clear to me how to convert ... symbol-table formatting
> elements to wiki format.
Ivan,
The symbol-table is essentially a nod to aesthetics--it just alters the
appearance of the table (mainly, the 'symbol' column is monospaced).
I forgot to mention: if you accept a plain string you can also slim
down the overall representation considerably. In the example below,
some will remark that you've no longer wrapped the procedure
description in a tag. However, any reasonable parser should be able
to reconstruct this information
Just a comment: in eggdoc the name of the procedure / syntax etc. is taken as a
plain string -- e.g. "(stream-xcons a b)". For HTML output, it is used
verbatim. For texinfo output, which has special directives to mark functions,
this input is deconstructed into procedure name and arguments using
> The only piece I see missing right now is that documentation can't be
> posted to the wiki in a semanticly rich way from which other tools can
> easily extract meaning. I will probably work on that.
Seeing that this has been just around the corner for months, I decided
to cross said corner toda
> 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).
I'm not sure I understand the problem here,
Well, I've been thinking about it, and perhaps it will be sufficient
to have a tool that translates from eggdoc to wiki syntax along the
lines of the following example. I would like to have fixed section
names and some code in the wiki that checks that all of the required
sections are present i
> 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 automat
> 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/
It should be noted that two of these are exactly the same, there's
reall
At Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:46:54 -0500,
John Cowan wrote:
> I'd rather see units and eggs treated as on a par, and the distinction
> drawn between community-supported, author-supported, and unsupported
> packages.
This might work, but isn't it hard to say something is community-supported?
How about "D
and for using Chicken on small devices this is a great selling point!
cheers,
John.
On 13/02/2008, felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Chicken is oriented towards being minimal and to externalize all
> extra functionality. What's included in the base system is only the
> stuff that i
On Feb 13, 2008 4:46 AM, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 stand
On Feb 12, 2008 7:16 PM, Peter Bex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
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
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,
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 happene
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.wi
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 liter
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 Chick
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
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 wrot
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 eggdo
--
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
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-co
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 pr
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
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 chi
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
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 eggdo
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, tutorial
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
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 t
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
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 whol
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 mi
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 w
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, FW
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
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
On 5/22/05, Zbigniew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I am starting to document an egg I'm working on. I notice many of
> the html docs on the web page look similar and was curious if there's
> a script or template used to generate them. Or are they being written
> by hand?
>
By hand. Just grab
Hi, I am starting to document an egg I'm working on. I notice many of
the html docs on the web page look similar and was curious if there's
a script or template used to generate them. Or are they being written
by hand?
___
Chicken-users mailing list
C
80 matches
Mail list logo
