Re: Constructed docstrings for closures

[David Kastrup]

Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> writes:

> 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)))

Uh, that one has worked for decades already.  The point was that the
docstring was to be _computed_ from a variable in the enclosing scope.

-- 
David Kastrup