(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: Proposal to add HTML class attributes to SRFIs to aid machine-parsing Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (06 Mar 2019 10:12 UTC)
Re: Proposal to add HTML class attributes to SRFIs to aid machine-parsing Ciprian Dorin Craciun (07 Mar 2019 09:37 UTC)

Re: Proposal to add HTML class attributes to SRFIs to aid machine-parsing Ciprian Dorin Craciun 07 Mar 2019 09:36 UTC

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 2:16 AM John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> wrote:
>> * it fails to capture all signature elements:  what is the output of
>> the procedure?  what are the types of various arguments?
>
>
> Argument type information is either in the prose or in the names of the formal
> arguments.  Output types appear in a few SRFIs but in the great
> majority of cases only in the prose.  You will not get this kind of
> blood from those stones without far more work than anyone is likely to do.

And this is why I say that trying to annotate and then extract this
kind of information (i.e. signatures) is futile, as the outcome is
certainly not complete, and in order to have enough useful information
the overhead on the actual text becomes unbearable.

Ciprian.