Hi Arne,
Arne Babenhauserheide writes:
> I think it would be more consistent to have the first form of the body
> double as a docstring if it is a string.
I agree with others that this is a very bad idea, and would encourage
you to change your habits. However, for the sake of showing how easy i
Arne Babenhauserheide writes:
> What do you think?
I don't have a strong opinion at all, since this feels like a bikesheddy
issue, but I think the current behavior is more preferable. A lambda
form cannot have an empty body, and having a docstring shouldn't change
that, so I would expect (lambd
2014-02-20 17:59 GMT+01:00 Arne Babenhauserheide :
> Hi,
>
> I recently experimented with docstrings, and I stumbled over not being
> able to define a function which only has a docstring as body:
>
>
> (define (foo)
> "bar")
>
> (procedure-documentation foo)
> => #f
>
> Adding a f
On 2014-02-20 16:59, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
Hi,
I recently experimented with docstrings, and I stumbled over not being
able to define a function which only has a docstring as body:
(define (foo)
"bar")
(procedure-documentation foo)
⇒ #f
Adding a form makes the string
Hi,
I recently experimented with docstrings, and I stumbled over not being
able to define a function which only has a docstring as body:
(define (foo)
"bar")
(procedure-documentation foo)
⇒ #f
Adding a form makes the string act as docstring:
(define (foo)
"ba
