English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[Caml-list] CDK binary release
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2001-05-11 (23:25)
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