Re: [comp.emacs.xemacs] Documenting elisp code

Jarl> So now I'm just curious: assuming that tools behave as Jarl> expected and all examples (i.e. all existing packages) are Jarl> converted and documentation is consistent, what do you Jarl> prefer? I find the ;;;; comments to be too heavy, but that I suppose is because I'm used to the lisp-mnt style. I don't have a strong preference for the style, but I do care about avoiding the work of conversion (of both files and their coders!!) -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Don't ask how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.