On 5/29/06, felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/29/06, Graham Fawcett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just thinking about what's happening now in the Python
community. A well-known Python developer dumped all of the official
documentation into a Wiki / content management system,
But if this is to be the official documentation source, I'm a little
concerned about the lack of semantic cues. For example, in the snippet
above, the same markup is used for both the example and the sample
implementation; and the procedure signature is weakly marked up
using whitespace.
On 5/30/06, Alejandro Forero Cuervo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if this is to be the official documentation source, I'm a little
concerned about the lack of semantic cues. [snip]
I will certainly add some tags. I absolutely agree with you.
I'll probably use a format based in tags (ala
On May 30, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
But if this is to be the official documentation source, I'm a little
concerned about the lack of semantic cues. For example, in the
snippet
above, the same markup is used for both the example and the sample
implementation; and the
Am Dienstag, den 30.05.2006, 11:35 -0500 schrieb Alejandro Forero
Cuervo:
But if this is to be the official documentation source, I'm a little
concerned about the lack of semantic cues. For example, in the snippet
above, the same markup is used for both the example and the sample
So why not xml at the end? At least as the canonical format.
Because wiki format is easier for humans to work with.
I know there are editors for XML, but I don't think they can compare
with the ease of use of typing wiki-syntax in one's favorite text
editor. Since, as you point out, one can
A smart-link for SRFI docs would be nice, so one could write
something like, see ((srfi-1)) for details and get a proper link to
the official SRFI doc.
Good idea. :-)
svnwiki supports user-defined (wiki-specific) linktypes. I added one
for the SRFI documents: [[srfi:40]] gets expanded to
On 5/29/06, Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a small observation -- the propensity for long,
complicated URL's isn't a win. Typing the full
www.call/cc.org is a pain; the galinha site is also
not something I can memorize, and the same goes for
the united freaks site.
You could always use
I now we're living in the age of delicious, but typing a good URL is
always the fastest. No, local bookmarks don't cut it -- there's
already too many of them.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd love shorter, memorable URL's.
Dan, I'm think if you buy us some shorter, memorable, domains, the
admins
Now, I have absolutely no problem with this. There is just one
catch: I don't want to maintain two versions of the manual, and we
definitely need something that can be installed locally.
Personally, I would suggest that we use
http://galinha.ucpel.tche.br/coop, since it's internal format can
On 5/29/06, Alejandro Forero Cuervo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, I have absolutely no problem with this. There is just one
catch: I don't want to maintain two versions of the manual, and we
definitely need something that can be installed locally.
Personally, I would suggest that we use
On May 29, 2006, at 12:09 PM, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
I don't think it would make much of a difference, though (which is
why I'm not buying them myself).
call/cc would make a difference w/ search engines.
How so? Lots of people searching call/cc instead of
I don't think it would make much of a difference, though (which is
why I'm not buying them myself).
call/cc would make a difference w/ search engines.
How so? Lots of people searching call/cc instead of
call-with-current-continuation, is that what you mean?
Yes.
I believe that of all
At Mon, 29 May 2006 03:12:06 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:
Just a small observation -- the propensity for long,
complicated URL's isn't a win. Typing the full
www.call/cc.org is a pain; the galinha site is also
not something I can memorize, and the same goes for
the united freaks site.
I like
On 5/28/06, felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/28/06, Peter Bex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 12:31:14PM +0200, felix winkelmann wrote:
Adding a quote in front of the define doesn't work either as that expands
to (quote (define with-x #t))
Try '...' (one
On 5/29/06, Graham Fawcett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just thinking about what's happening now in the Python
community. A well-known Python developer dumped all of the official
documentation into a Wiki / content management system, and the
community is busy filling in gaps, and adding new
16 matches
Mail list logo
