Re: [Caml-list] CDK binary release

[Markus Mottl <mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at>]

On Thu, 10 May 2001, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:19:40AM +0200, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote:
> > The CDK documentation tool has still many problems, but it is
> > currently the only tool which produces man pages for Ocaml modules and
> > functions. Moreover, LaTeX is not used by all Ocaml users (some are
> > using Windows and its wonderful editors). For now, I think the best
> > language is a specific language, for example, a subset of HTML.

I agree with Dave and Sven that producing LaTeX should be supported in
some way or the other. HTML alone is not good enough, and translating
from HTML to LaTeX definitely doesn't seem to be so much easier than the
other way round. It's usually better to translate from more powerful to
less powerful languages.

Also, I don't need man page support, though this could be surely added
to hevea (it already supports texinfo). Man pages are really just text
beefed up with some formatting (no cross-references and such). The
following bash function probably produces more readable output:

  function ocdoc () { command vim -R `ocamlc -where`/$1; }

To summarize, I'd prefer a tool that produces Latex and also allows
Latex-code within the documentation. Ocamlweb could surely be improved
(more features, more beautiful formatting, etc.), but I think it gets
the ideas of simplicity + expressiveness basically right. Why not take
this tool and make it ready for wide-spread public use? I was a bit
surprised that cdk_doc doesn't build on ocamlweb + hevea.

Best regards,
Markus Mottl

-- 
Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr