Scryer-prolog: Question about documentation

[notoria]

1. Is there a project for documenting the code?

2. After running cargo doc --no-deps, there isn't much in the documentation. Assuming one of the references for writing scryer-prolog is Warren's Abstract Machine: A Tutorial Reconstruction. Is there any issue in citing Warren's Abstract Machine: A Tutorial Reconstruction when documenting the code?

[mthom]

1. There is not, no. It may make more sense to provide a written overview of the architecture, and then the rest can be understood by a critical exploration of the codebase. Some things may change in the coming months and years, though.. now that I know more about interpreters and compilers, there are several things I intend to do differently.

2. There's no issue with referencing that book, no. The project was based on it initially.

[notoria]

I will commit some documentations PR then.

[rljacobson]

I came here to make the same comment. The source code appears to be almost entirely free of comments. @mthom Have you done any writing about your design decisions as you suggest above?

[mthom]

I came here to make the same comment. The source code appears to be almost entirely free of comments. @mthom Have you done any writing about your design decisions as you suggest above?

Not really, no. I have very rough personal notes I've kept over the years but that is all. I am now in the process of revamping the compilation and loading code, so, there's an opportunity for me to document that (rewritten) code.

[rljacobson]

I just want to encourage you to do so! There is such a rich literature about implementing logic programming languages, but there is hardly anything outside of academia. Even if you feel your design isn't perfect, that's ok, it doesn't need to be. People can still learn a lot from it. The Rust community is a particularly curious, student dense community, too.

Best wishes.