[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Constructed docstrings for closures
From: |
Artur Malabarba |
Subject: |
Re: Constructed docstrings for closures |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Jan 2015 21:07:35 -0200 |
> Lars suggests:
> > (declare (comment (format "This is a comment about %s" bla)))
> > would be a natural syntax, I think?
I agree this would be the most natural, but if it does slow down
evaluation (which I think it would), then it isn't worth the cost.
OTOH, it might be interesting to apply this logic to `defun's, since
they already handle `declare' forms anyway.
> David prefers:
> > Doing it the other way round seems much cleaner:
> > (with-doc-string
> > (concat "Toto is very " blabla ".")
> > (lambda (foo bar)
> > (code using foo and bar (and blabla as well))))
If this is chosen, I would find the following form more natural:
(lambda-with-doc-string (foo bar)
;; First body form is evaluated at compile time and must return a string.
(concat "Toto is very " blabla ".")
;; Everything else is a regular lambda.
(code using foo and bar (and blabla as well)))