RE: [Caml-list] Anonymous sum types in functors

[David Allsopp <dra-news@metastack.com>]

Kristopher Micinski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:39 AM, David Allsopp 
> <dra-news@metastack.com>
> wrote:
> > Xavier Leroy wrote:
> >> On 23/06/13 09:16, David Allsopp wrote:
> >> > b) Is there a syntactically lighter way to write the module
> definition?
> >>
> >> I would recommend naming your anonymous "struct":
> >>
> >> module Flag = struct
> >>   type t = A | B
> >>   let compare = compare
> >>   (* Other useful operations over flags, e.g. *)
> >>   let to_string = function A -> "A" | B -> "B"
> >> end
> >
> > The "reason" for wanting to avoid that in this instance is the 
> > specific application - the sets are actually bit masks and there are 
> > about 50 of them (using a code generator, unsurprisingly). Given 
> > that the ocamldoc output is already going to be interesting, I was 
> > trying to avoid having 100 modules if possible :o)
> 
> This honestly sounds like something that you should be able to avoid 
> in OCamlDoc.  It seems sensible you should be able to mark things as 
> "don't generate documentation for these", but I havent' seen such.

(**/**) is mentioned in the manual for ocamldoc (and used in the standard library, typically to "hide" the documentation for unsafe functions) - see 15.2.2 of the reference manual.

All these types do need documenting :o) But splitting the documentation for each concept across two modules will necessarily make the documentation physically longer!


David