At Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:53:59 -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Is it OK if I *exclude* the HTML rendering of the docs from the files
> included in the packaging altogether (which would give me the below
> files)?
That sounds right to me.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
OK, instead of "doc.scrbl", I'll have ".scrbl".
Is it OK if I *exclude* the HTML rendering of the docs from the files included
in the packaging altogether (which would give me the below files)?
* info.rkt (the usual)
* somepackage.rkt (the full implementation with embedded docs, for my
packag
Be sure not to use the name "doc" for the document, but instead a name
that is connected to the package (because all documents are rendered to
the same place in installation scope). In other words, either make the
document source "somepackage.scrbl" or use "somepackage" as the
document name in the
I'm going to try to retool for the new package system by the end of the
weekend, and have a couple questions...
What's the current preferred convention on what documentation-related
files are included in the package? And is that convention expected to
remain stable for a year or more?
For e
4 matches
Mail list logo
