Re: CLOS and C++

From: Peter Seibel (peter_at_javamonkey.com)
Date: 11/26/03 

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:12:24 GMT

tfb@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Bur***) writes:

> james anderson <james.anderson@setf.de> writes:
>
> > "Thomas F. Bur***" wrote:
> >
> > > Huh?!?! Generating docbook is fine -- but why on earth would you need
> > > to munge the program *text* to generate docbook?
> >
> > one motivation is to implement calling analysis portably.
> >
> > > Common Lisp is not
> > > defined on text, and it's completely pedestrian to take advantage of
> > > that.
> >
> > i surmise from the description (sourceforge.net/projects/albert), that the
> > approach is to analyse the source code, but not the "text".
>
> Hmm, I saw it repeatedly compared to javadoc, so I didn't look very
> closely at it. Personally, I think it's better to take an
> inspect-the-live-image approach, but having looked over the site a
> little bit, I at least understand what they were thinking.

Seems like the best of both worlds is to provide a way to
unobtrusively annotate code with documentation that is then made
available in the image via DOCUMENTATION or DOCUMENTATION on steriods
and *also* to provide a tool that can crawl through an image and
produce static documentation in a variety of formats (one of which
almost has to be HTML these days) so you can put the docs for your
libraries up on the web in a format that folks can browse before
they've decided whether they even want to load it into their image.

-Peter 

-- 
Peter Seibel                                      peter@javamonkey.com
         Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp