[cldoc-devel] MK-DEFSYSTEM

[Marco Antoniotti]

Hello

On Nov 1, 2006, at 7:43 PM, Iban HATCHONDO wrote:

>> Marco Antoniotti wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I made CLDOC work with MK-DEFSYSTEM.  The changes are trivial, 
>> however,
>> they are not foolproof and they are not very nice to look at.  I feel
>> that CLDOC makes a few assumptions about ASDF that are not true of
>> MK-DEFSYSTEM.
>
> I don't remember such discret assumptions :)
> Everything should be explicitly written in an implementation of 
> extract-documentation that has specialized its third argument 
> (filenames) on asdf:system. Its html implementation simply retreives 
> all files of an asdf system and invoke extract-documentation with the 
> resulting list. Did I miss something ?

MK-DEFSYSTEM returns a list of absolute pathnames with the command 
MK:FILES-IN-SYSTEM.  It seems CLDOC assumes that the list of files must 
contain relative pathnames.  This is what ASFD seems to do.


>
>> Apart from that, it seems to me that while the file-oriented output is
>> a nice thing, a package oriented one would be nice as well.  Would it
>> be difficult to set it up?
>
> I guess not. But since I've started cldoc I don't see how, since 
> Common Lisp is not an encapsulating language as some others, in which 
> it becomes obvious.
> For this reason I choose a file oriented shortcut :) Each package is 
> used as section in the main index, and each file that holds symbol 
> definition for this package will appear as a subsection.
> If you have an idea of how to present a package oriented view, I guess 
> it should not be too difficult to set it up. Do you have ideas on how 
> to present such a view ?

I think the file oriented view is useful.  I would just add a pure 
package view with all the symbols (exported and/or not) listed there.

>>
>> PS.  CLDOC fails to handle a set of files that have not been loaded
>> beforehand.  I don't have a problem with that, but it is something 
>> that
>> should appear in the documentation.
>
> Indeed, I presume i forgot to mention this point :) I'll do it asp. I 
> have few commit to make as well.

Yes.  This is needed because other wise you get obscure error messages, 
at least in LW.

Also, thanks for the offer to have commit privileges, but for the time 
being I just prefer to send diffs. :)  I will do that ASAP.

Cheers
--
marco