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

[mstachow at alum dot mit dot edu]

Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
> 
> Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:
> 
> > I prefer the Emacs solution before the script solution, though,
> > because of the above reason and because it is conceptually simpler.
> 
> "And what the hell does he mean with "conceptually simpler"?"  :)
> 
> I mean that it seems more likely to break.  (What if the stupid SP2
> environment has a slightly broken perl?  What if there are bugs in the
> perlscript?  (Note that you'll always see the result with the Emacs
> solution.)  When am I going to run the script? etc etc)

I'd like an emacs-based solution better as well, because there won't
be a cutover point after which editing docstrings becomes more difficult.
If you are willing to do this I would really appreciate it.

 - Maciej