Mantis Bug Tracker

View Issue Details Jump to Notes ] Issue History ] Print ]
IDProjectCategoryView StatusDate SubmittedLast Update
0006274OCamlOCamldocpublic2013-12-16 19:282014-02-19 17:15
Assigned Toguesdon 
PlatformOSOS Version
Product Version 
Target VersionFixed in Version 
Summary0006274: Better handling of objects type definition
DescriptionDefinition of object types, while syntactically similar to record types, are not "handled" by ocamldoc, i.e. the documentation one associates to fields does not appear in ocamldoc output.
It would be nice if it did.

I have written a few patches to implement such a feature, they are available for review at [^] .

I'm not sure how much this is related to 0004347 .
I probably have a naïve approach here, however it does seem to work without breaking anything and I am not yet "deeply sad to the point of not using ocamldoc at all" (to quote jm).

You will notice that I introduce some code duplication with the handling of records (although it might be hard to notice, considering how much code duplication there already is) which should be easily factorisable.
However I wanted to gauge people's interest before investing more time on that; and it can always be cleaned afterward.
Additional InformationThe patches are currently on the 4.01.0 branch, but I don't think rebasing them to trunk would pose any problem.
Attached Files? file icon maps.psd [^] (1,659,429 bytes) 2013-12-25 02:18
? file icon Source.a51 [^] (1,496 bytes) 2013-12-25 15:15

- Relationships

-  Notes
gasche (developer)
2013-12-24 15:09

I just did a review of the patch (medium precision, I would say). It consists of three commits:

1. [^] collects comments occurring after method fields in a definition of an object type
2. [^] collects method fields of object type definitions in the Odoc_type.t_type structure, and then pretty-prints them (in various backends) with more structure than just outputting the source text, rather like record definitions.
3. [^] fixes a bug with the implementation approach of commit (2)

I think (commit 1) is reasonable, but I am less convinced by the overall design of (commit 2): a new "type kind" is added to the type Odoc_type.type_kind, which previously precisely mirrored the type_kind of the typedtree (type synonym, variant or record), to store the information needed by the backends.

I think it is wrong to break the correspondence between the typedtree "type kind" and ocamldoc's "type kind" (for example ocamldoc uses type_kind to decide whether to print parameters variance information, and I suspect this is broken by this change). A better design, I think, would be to add the idea that, besides the type_kind, useful printing information may come from the type manifest (the type-expression after the equal sign, if any), and have a function like

  val manifest_structure : Types.type_expr -> Odoc_type.ty_manifest option

where ty_manifest would be a new type storing information for the type expressions we decide to print in a special way when they occur on the right of an equal sign -- (only) objects types for now. At printing points you could check both the kind and the manifest, and decide on both (eg. giving priority to the ty_manifest when it exists).

I think most of the current implementation could be reused, the idea is only to preserve the tight correspondence between typedtree's and ocamldoc's type_kind.

Other than that the patch looks sensible, and I don't see any reason *not* to include this extra feature.
trefis (reporter)
2013-12-27 20:42

Thank you for your comments.

I tried to follow your proposition:
I first reverted the two previous commits, i.e. "2" and "3" in your comment, and then introduced [Odoc_type.type_manifest] as suggested (all this could be squashed before being pushed to the svn if you want a cleaner history).

I tried to make this commit as little intrusive as I could, so there is a lot of code redundancy which I then remove in the two next commits.

The code is available at the same url as before.

trefis (reporter)
2014-01-10 12:12
edited on: 2014-01-10 12:15

Quick update: gasche commented the previous patches directly on github.
I have since added one last patch to answer his comments.

Everything should be "OK" now.

PS: Thanks to "Ditoran2" for the random pokemon "maps". I hadn't realized mantis could be a suitable replacement to megaupload.

- Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
2013-12-16 19:28 trefis New Issue
2013-12-16 19:28 trefis Status new => assigned
2013-12-16 19:28 trefis Assigned To => guesdon
2013-12-24 15:09 gasche Note Added: 0010766
2013-12-25 02:18 Ditoran2 File Added: maps.psd
2013-12-25 15:15 Ditoran2 File Added: Source.a51
2013-12-27 20:42 trefis Note Added: 0010768
2014-01-10 12:12 trefis Note Added: 0010792
2014-01-10 12:15 trefis Note Edited: 0010792 View Revisions
2014-02-19 17:15 doligez Tag Attached: patch

Copyright © 2000 - 2011 MantisBT Group
Powered by Mantis Bugtracker