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 KAA17529; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 10:44:26 +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 KAA17487 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 10:44:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from inria.fr (santenay.inria.fr [128.93.8.59]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f998iO519543; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 10:44:24 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BC30DCA.2020602@inria.fr> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 10:46:34 -0400 From: Maxence Guesdon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.3) Gecko/20010808 X-Accept-Language: fr, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francois.Pottier@inria.fr CC: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: [Caml-list] Re: [Caml-announce] OCamldoc References: <3BC218CA.9060008@inria.fr> <20011009082648.A14690@pauillac.inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hello > Congratulations for this very nice piece of work. Thanks. > A question about comment placement: isn't it a bit inconsistent to > expect comments for record fields to be placed *after* the record, > while the opposite convention is used for object fields? > I would consider it more consistent to always require the comment to > precede the element. The purpose of the current convention concerning > record fields and data constructors seems to be to encourage people > to write comments that fit on the remainder on the line, which is bad > practice anyway. I *agree* that this can be viewed as inconsistency, but i think comments for record fields and data constructors are usually quite short, since they are a complement to the type comment. Moreover, do you prefer type t = (** constructor 1 *) C1 of int (** constructor 2 *) | C2 of float (** constructor 3 *) | C3 of string or type t = C1 of int (** constructor 1 *) | C2 of float (** constructor 2 *) | C3 of string (** constructor 3 *) ? i prefer the second one, which more easily gives me an overview of the type. But it's only a matter of taste ;-) Anyway, thanks for our interest -- Maxence ------------------- 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