ocamldoc -pack

ocamldoc -pack

[Sean McLaughlin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

Hello,

  I'd like to see a -pack option for ocamldoc.  It would be nice for packed
modules to
have accurate documentation.  I saw something about this in a post
from 2002, but nothing afterwards.   Is this a possibility in the future?

Thanks,

Sean

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 309 bytes --]

Re: [Caml-list] ocamldoc -pack

[Yaron Minsky]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 799 bytes --]

As it happens we're looking for more-or-less the same feature.  Is it true,
as this post suggests, that ocamldoc is broken with respect to pack'd
libraries?

y

On 6/1/07, Sean McLaughlin <seanmcl@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>   I'd like to see a -pack option for ocamldoc.  It would be nice for
> packed modules to
> have accurate documentation.  I saw something about this in a post
> from 2002, but nothing afterwards.   Is this a possibility in the future?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sean
>
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1712 bytes --]

Re: [Caml-list] ocamldoc -pack

[Vladimir Shabanov]

I'm also looked for this feature some time ago. Seems that there is no
support in ocamldoc for it.

The quick and dirty solution I've used is to catenate all packed .ml &
.mli in one file and then use ocamldoc on it.

Here the little script I've used (it just print catenated modules,
which are passed as arguments, and if you have .mli file you must pass
it just before corresponding .ml):
http://camlosg.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/camlosg/trunk/camlosg/Make/pack_in_one.ml?view=markup

But it would be much better if this will be supported in ocamldoc directly.

2007/6/5, Yaron Minsky <yminsky@cs.cornell.edu>:
> As it happens we're looking for more-or-less the same feature.  Is it true,
> as this post suggests, that ocamldoc is broken with respect to pack'd
> libraries?
>
> y
>
>
> On 6/1/07, Sean McLaughlin <seanmcl@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> >   I'd like to see a -pack option for ocamldoc.  It would be nice for
> packed modules to
> > have accurate documentation.  I saw something about this in a post
> > from 2002, but nothing afterwards.   Is this a possibility in the future?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sean

Re: [Caml-list] ocamldoc -pack

[Vladimir Shabanov]

I personally don't use ocamlbuild, since it doesn't support C++ files.
And even if it does, the -pack is ocamldoc problem, not ocamlbuild
one.

2007/6/5, Francisco Jos? Valverde Albacete <fva@tsc.uc3m.es>:
> er... Wouldn't this be the kind of scripting that ocamlbuild would be
> most useful for?
>
> Regards,
>
>     Fran Valverde
>
> Vladimir Shabanov wrote:
> > I'm also looked for this feature some time ago. Seems that there is no
> > support in ocamldoc for it.
> >
> > The quick and dirty solution I've used is to catenate all packed .ml &
> > .mli in one file and then use ocamldoc on it.
> >
> > Here the little script I've used (it just print catenated modules,
> > which are passed as arguments, and if you have .mli file you must pass
> > it just before corresponding .ml):
> > http://camlosg.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/camlosg/trunk/camlosg/Make/pack_in_one.ml?view=markup
> >
> >
> > But it would be much better if this will be supported in ocamldoc
> > directly.
> >
> > 2007/6/5, Yaron Minsky <yminsky@cs.cornell.edu>:
> >> As it happens we're looking for more-or-less the same feature.  Is it
> >> true,
> >> as this post suggests, that ocamldoc is broken with respect to pack'd
> >> libraries?
> >>
> >> y
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/1/07, Sean McLaughlin <seanmcl@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> >   I'd like to see a -pack option for ocamldoc.  It would be nice for
> >> packed modules to
> >> > have accurate documentation.  I saw something about this in a post
> >> > from 2002, but nothing afterwards.   Is this a possibility in the
> >> future?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Sean