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 PAA17180; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:34:01 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA17177 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:34:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.44.193]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f9ADXx101447; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:33:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from luther@localhost) by dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA03368; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:33:40 +0200 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:33:39 +0200 From: Sven To: bcpierce@cis.upenn.edu Cc: Dave Berry , Maxence Guesdon , Jerome Vouillon , Francois Pottier , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: [Caml-announce] OCamldoc Message-ID: <20011010153339.C3177@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> References: <8E31D6933A2FE64F8AE3CC1381EEDCE7140166@NT.kal.com> <4066.1002712085@saul.cis.upenn.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <4066.1002712085@saul.cis.upenn.edu>; from bcpierce@saul.cis.upenn.edu on Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 07:08:05AM -0400 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 07:08:05AM -0400, Benjamin C. Pierce wrote: > > I think you missed the point of Jerome's suggestion, which was (** ... > > *) vs. (* ... **). (Either that, or I missed his point...). So my > > variant was to show the difference at the start of each comment, where > > it would be more immediate. > > Aha -- sorry, I did miss the point. So I'd like to make another a > variant proposal... :-) > > - The comment is before the element: > (** fun 1 *) > val f : t > (** fun 2 *) > val g : u > > - The comment is after the element: > val f : t > (** fun 1 *) > val g : u > (** fun 2 *) > > - The comment is on the same line as the element: > val f : t (** fun 1 *) > val g : u (** fun 2 *) > (Most useful for record fields, probably.) > > I.e., *one* kind of (not very) funny comment marker, plus using the > indentation to decide whether the comment binds to the expression before > or after: > > if the comment is on a line by itself, > then if its indentation is the same as the following (non-comment) line > then it goes with the following > else it goes with the preceding > else it goes with the line it's on. Personnaly, i would be very strongly against using indentation to define if the stuff is before or after, after all, not everyone wants to indent things the same way. The (*< and (*> idea seems good and very intuitive. what is the reproch against it you have ? Another idea would be (but more cumbersome, and much less readable) : (** comment before *) (* comment after **) or even (*< comment before **) and (** comment before >*) (or maybe the other way around) But still this is less handy when longer comments are used. Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr