Re: [Caml-list] New CDK documentation

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

On Tue, 22 May 2001, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote:
> After the discussion on which format should be used for the CDK, we
> implemented a new version of cdk_doc generating texinfo files. The
> results (DVI, Postscript, Info, HTML and PDF) can be seen on:

The set of target formats is sufficiently large with this option, and
output looks reasonably nice. The power of texinfo is probably high enough
to cover around 99% of all uses. It's not clear that the remaining 1%
should actually be written as interface documentation anyway: seperately
written Latex-documentation might be the better choice then.

I think I could live with this option, but before I adopt it, I'd really
want to make sure that it has a chance of becoming "the" standard. I
already suffer enough when I have to write documentation once. Having to
do this even more often due to shifting standards would ruin my life... ;)

Any chance that we could jointly agree on this?

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