[Openmcl-devel] [Ecls-list] Documentation missing
stassats at gmail.com
Wed Feb 23 04:09:37 CST 2011
Marko Kocić <marko.kocic at gmail.com> writes:
> HI all,
> I was playing a bit with slime and its documentation facilities, and
> constructed quickly a small function to find all symbols that are not
> The results are the following:
> ECL - CL package - 707 documented, 271 undocumented
> ECL - EXT package - 45 documented, 376 undocumented
> SBCL - CL package - 685 documented, 293 undocumented
> CCL - CL package - 608 documented, 370 undocumented
> ABCL - CL package - 8 documented, 970 undocumented
> Winner by number of documented symbols is ECL, while CCL, and
> especially SBCL subjectively seems to have more elaborate docstrings,
> with longer explanations.
> Is anyone aware is it possible to automatically parse hyperspec in
> order to create docstring that can be added to sources later?
> Or, to teach slime to use hyperspec as a fallback for CL symbols that
> are not documented in implementation?
> Code used to count:
> (defun documented-p (sym)
> (let ((vdoc (swank::documentation sym 'variable))
> (fdoc (swank::documentation sym 'function)))
> (or vdoc fdoc)))
> (length (loop for s being the external-symbols of (find-package :cl)
> when (documented-p s)
> collect s))
There is rarely any value in looking for documentation of symbols in CL
package, I always use C-c C-d h (slime-documentation-lookup) to lookup
them in CLHS.
With Best Regards, Stas.
More information about the Openmcl-devel