Marko Kocić marko.kocic@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 documented.
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.