Re: Scheme file docstring format

[Carl R. Witty]

Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

> I don't think there are _big_ differences to be found anywhere here.
> How can there be?, when all we are talking about is the difference
> between
> 
> ;; arfle barfle gloop
> (define (fraz bar)                       [1]
>   ...)
> 
> and
> 
> (define (fraz bar)
>   "arfle barfle gloop"                   [2]
>   ...)
> 
> For me, however, [1] somehow _feels_ more i18n-friendly.  It suggests
> a _looser_ association than [2] between code and docstring, and this
> looseness suggests a space into which i18n/l10n can fit.  So, IMO, [1]
> invites people to believe in the translation mechanism - and therefore
> go to the trouble of translating the docstrings! - more than [2] does.

I feel the opposite.  With [2], I imagine the docstrings in memory as
scheme strings, at which point it's easy to call gettext.  With [1], I
imagine the docstrings disappearing into a big opaque documentation
processing system, with HTML/Texinfo/etc. coming out the other end,
and no convenient place to call gettext.

> (Oh dear; bye, bye, credibility.)

Goodbye credibility!

Carl Witty