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:

> "Greg J. Badros" wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> I guess we still need to figure out a way to make the docstring editing
> reasonable in the correct format, since they need to end up that way
> eventually.
> 
> I guess this plan sounds reasonable, but I am wary of pervasive code
> changes that are slated to happen "right before release". It sounds like
> a great way to introduce last-minute bugs.

That's what reading diffs are for! :-).  And maybe "right before
release" is not the right way to put it.  Right after finishing the
massive docstring effort which hopefully won't be the last thing that
needs to get done before the next relesae.  Or we can do the change once 
we have some reasonable X?Emacs tools to manage ANSI-C literal strings
split across lines.... whichever comes first.

Greg