Re: Constructed docstrings for closures

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:18:26 -0500 Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote: 

SM> I'd like to lift this restriction by offering a new feature that lets us
SM> do something like:

SM>    (lambda (foo bar)
SM>      <something-magical-here>
SM>      (code using foo and bar (and blabla as well)))

SM> and get the closure we want with the docstring we want.

SM> Does anyone have an idea of what the <something-magical-here>
SM> could/should be?

Would it be crazy to make it look like a `defun' docstring?

    (lambda (foo bar)
      "My docstring about FOO and BAR"
      (code using foo and bar (and blabla as well)))

Ted