From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id AAA13295; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:55:06 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA13291 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:55:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from miss.wu-wien.ac.at (miss.wu-wien.ac.at [137.208.107.17]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f4AMt3n08467 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:55:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from mottl@localhost) by miss.wu-wien.ac.at (8.9.0/8.9.0) id AAA13301; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:53:46 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 00:53:45 +0200 From: Markus Mottl To: Thorsten Ohl Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] CDK binary release Message-ID: <20010511005345.A13888@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> References: <15094.25994.675673.222337@cremant.inria.fr> <20010509125858.B28402@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> <3AF9852A.F2B18679@ozemail.com.au> <20010510004003.A27333@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> <3AF9D067.93E6DE1A@ozemail.com.au> <15098.23852.403551.65183@cremant.inria.fr> <20010510131646.A20887@lambda.u-strasbg.fr> <20010510151854.A6851@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> <15098.46839.795500.758294@pc803> <15098.48364.427110.543643@heplix4.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <15098.48364.427110.543643@heplix4.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de>; from ohl@hep.tu-darmstadt.de on Thu, May 10, 2001 at 18:08:12 +0200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Thorsten Ohl schrieb am Thursday, den 10. May 2001: > Yes, but it would be very useful if the markup could serve both purposes > simultaneously. I'm using ocamlweb extensively and I find myself > writing *.mli files that could be turned into online documentation The same is true for me: the documentation of interfaces is the same for users of some module and for developers. Only the latter usually also want to see the documentation of the implementation. Being able to generate both kinds of documentations without having to write extra annotations would be a big help! That's why I am a bit reluctant about cdk_doc, because it only addresses the library user's point of view. Ocamlweb could probably (please correct me if I am wrong) be turned into a general tool much more easily than the other approaches I have seen. Any chance that it (or something similar) could ever get the status of a standard tool (which cdk_doc seems to be targeting)? 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