Browse thread
[Caml-list] CDK binary release
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Brian Rogoff <bpr@b...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] CDK binary release |
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote: > For LaTeX, we will not force people to use LaTeX to document their > interfaces: most comments are simple text lines including some pieces > of code (in cdk_doc, they simply have to be between brackets). Only > section titles have to be handled differently. cdk_doc is enough for > that. New output formats have to be added, and all interfaces have to > be completely translated to the input format ... We are not writting a > book, but only a reference manual, thus, we don't need SGML or > complicated formatting tool for that ! I think that's the main point of disagreement. I'd like a source documentation tool which will scale up to writing books (unlikely) or at least magazine or journal article like things. I'd also prefer not to have a separate tool and source of embedded comment information just for documenting interfaces, like JavaDoc. Latex seems to be able to fill that role, there is a wealth of experience using it, and now there is hevea, ocamlweb, and mldoc. I don't know enough about the state of SGML or XML tools to know how they fare against my desires. I'm leaning to the Latex approach now. -- Brian ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr