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 JAA29738; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:57:21 +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 JAA09482 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:57:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mwinf0603.wanadoo.fr (smtp3.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.25]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h6U7vJT05759 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:57:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from bdb (ASt-Lambert-104-1-3-7.w80-14.abo.wanadoo.fr [80.14.49.7]) by mwinf0603.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 0989624000A7; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:57:19 +0200 (CEST) From: "BdB" To: , "caml-list" Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Re: [Caml-list] Question/Feature request about Camlidl andcomments] Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:53:40 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 implemented:01 matthieu:01 dubuget:01 ocamldoc:01 mli:01 const:01 char:01 enums:01 tiscali:99 cher:99 adsl:99 offert:99 cliquez:99 bug:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Not solving your problem here, but wouldn't it be more consistent to use a literate programming tool for IDL? After all, your IDL component may or may not be implemented in O'CaML... > -----Message d'origine----- > De : owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr > [mailto:owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr]De la part de > matthieu.dubuget@libertysurf.fr > Envoyé : mercredi 30 juillet 2003 08:43 > À : caml-list > Objet : [Caml-list] Re: [Caml-list] Question/Feature request about > Camlidl andcomments] > > > >Depending on what you base your ocamldoc generation, > >use either ml or mli. Since i think mli is the best > >place to do it i will use it : > > >quote(mli,"(** This is a ocamldoc comment *)"); > > >int my_function ( [string] const char * msg ); > > >Simple ! > > I should have explained in detail what I was trying to do. > > I did an attempt to do what you are suggesting. The problem > is that it seems difficult to control where the comments > will appear in the generated mli files. > > For example, if I try > quote(mli,"** This is a module *)"); at the very beginning > of my idl file in order to generate a comment to be > associated with the whole module, the string appears between > types definitions and functions definitions, which is not > what we need to conform to ocamldoc. An other point was that > I wanted to comment also the elements of enums. > > I may have the time to look at camlidl source code during my > holidays... > > Salutations > > Matthieu Dubuget > > > > > > ********** L'ADSL A 20 EUR/MOIS********** > Tiscali propose l'ADSL le moins cher du marché : 20 EUR/mois et > le modem ADSL offert ! > Pour profiter de cette offre exceptionnelle, cliquez ici : http://register.tiscali.fr/adsl/ Offre soumise à conditions. ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners