[Ecls-list] Documentation missing

[Stas Boukarev]

Marko Kocić <marko.kocic at gmail.com> writes:

> HI all,
>
> I was playing a bit with slime and its documentation facilities, and
> constructed quickly a small function to find all symbols that are not
> documented.
>
> The results are the following:
> ECL -   CL package - 707 documented, 271 undocumented
> ECL - EXT package -   45 documented, 376 undocumented
> SBCL - CL package - 685 documented, 293 undocumented
> CCL -   CL package - 608 documented, 370 undocumented
> ABCL - CL package -    8 documented, 970 undocumented
>
> Winner by number of documented symbols is ECL, while CCL, and
> especially SBCL subjectively seems to have more elaborate docstrings,
> with longer explanations.
>
> Is anyone aware is it possible to automatically parse hyperspec in
> order to create docstring that can be added to sources later?
>
> Or, to teach slime to use hyperspec as a fallback for CL symbols that
> are not documented in implementation?
>
> Code used to count:
>
> (defun documented-p (sym)
>     (let ((vdoc (swank::documentation sym 'variable))
>           (fdoc (swank::documentation sym 'function)))
>       (or vdoc fdoc)))
>
> (length (loop for s being the external-symbols of (find-package :cl)
>               when (documented-p s)
>             collect s))
>
There is rarely any value in looking for documentation of symbols in CL
package, I always use C-c C-d h (slime-documentation-lookup) to lookup
them in CLHS.

-- 
With Best Regards, Stas.