Re: Guile docstrings---should Guile code be ANSI C compatible?

["Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>]

mstachow@alum.mit.edu writes:

> Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Maciej, could you please make a decision which route we should take.
> > 
> 
> I was under the impression that the plan was to change the current code
> to be ANSI-compliant. If that is not the case, then that's what should
> happen. I don't think the approach of doing it in the script to convert
> the .x-files is right - ANSI-compliant compilers could still  choke
> on the macros theselves, even if they expand to nothing.

It's not that script; it's a separate script I wrote (and posted, and
mjd reposted) initially with the intention of just using it once to
update the CVS and commit the new version.  Then I thought better of it, 
realizing how easy it would be to change CVS later, and how much trouble 
it would save me to not have to manage the \n\ separators in the short
term while the docstrings are in a lot of flux.

Greg