[slime-devel] Re: slime feature proposal: message-of-the-day

Dan Weinreb dlw at itasoftware.com
Mon Nov 6 13:17:10 UTC 2006

On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 15:49 +0100, Marco Baringer wrote:
> Jeffrey Cunningham <jeffrey at cunningham.net> writes:
> > Okay. 
> >
> > The current manual looks like it was generated with makeinfo. Where
> > can I find the source for that?
> doc/slime.texi
> > Is it necessarily desirable to continue using that documentation
> > model? I just put togther documentation for a large set of codes at
> > work using doxygen which, of course, has no Lisp support, but did open
> > my eyes to the possibilities. 
> personally i believe the things like doxygen, while usefull, should
> only complement a hand written user manual. using something like
> sbcl's docstrings.lisp would be cool for the swank configuration
> variables, but i'd strongly suggest keeping the current model.
I agree.  Anything automatically generated from the code is not
going to have the right structure to serve as a good online manual.

That said, I do think that the documentation should be kept in
the same version control regime as the code.  Developers with
commit privileges must get used to the idea that whenever making
a change with user-visible consequences, this document should
be updated.  My 2 cents.

More information about the slime-devel mailing list