This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Suggestion: new snarf macro set
Dirk Herrmann <dirk@ida.ing.tu-bs.de> writes:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but if you'd define SCM_DEFINE_C_FUNCTION as:
>
> #define SCM_DEFINE_C_FUNCTION(RTYPE, FNAME, ARGLIST, DOCSTRING) \
> SCM_HERE ( \
> RTYPE FNAME ARGLIST \
> ) \
> SCM_DOCS ( \
> <formatted docstring goes here>
> ))
>
> you would have the same combined documentation/definition possibilities as
> for primitives. C variables can be declared in a similar way. It's just
> macros that can not be defined within macros.
Oh, I see. Anyway, we can choose either syntax (i.e., comment style or
macro style), so it's a matter of taste. I guess we should first start
working on Scheme docstrings. I'll think of more details.
Kei