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 QAA18727; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:10:29 +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 QAA18747 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:10:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.1]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f9AEAQ101584 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:10:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (suiren.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.25]) by kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (8.9.3/3.7W) with ESMTP id XAA19423; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 23:10:16 +0900 (JST) To: luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: [Caml-announce] OCamldoc In-Reply-To: <20011010153339.C3177@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> References: <8E31D6933A2FE64F8AE3CC1381EEDCE7140166@NT.kal.com> <4066.1002712085@saul.cis.upenn.edu> <20011010153339.C3177@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20011010231016I.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 23:10:16 +0900 From: Jacques Garrigue X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk From: Sven > On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 07:08:05AM -0400, Benjamin C. Pierce wrote: > > > > 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. I think that the above rules match rather closely what most people write anyway. A documentation tool is based on conventions, as visual as possible (you want to read the comments in the source too). And I understand Benjamin Pierce's resistance to a multiplication of strange symbols: they are harder to read than indentation. But what am I doing in a discussion on automatic documentation, while I almost never write any comment :-( Cheers, Jacques Garrigue ------------------- 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