[Openmcl-devel] Documentation missing

Marko Kocić marko.kocic at gmail.com
Wed Feb 23 10:03:40 UTC 2011


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))

Regards,
Marko Kocić



More information about the Openmcl-devel mailing list