Hello

> Congratulations for this very nice piece of work.
Thanks.

> A question about comment placement: isn't it a bit inconsistent to
> expect comments for record fields to be placed *after* the record,
> while the opposite convention is used for object fields?
> I would consider it more consistent to always require the comment to
> precede the element. The purpose of the current convention concerning
> record fields and data constructors seems to be to encourage people
> to write comments that fit on the remainder on the line, which is bad
> practice anyway.
I *agree* that this can be viewed as inconsistency, but i think comments 
for record fields and data constructors are usually quite short, since 
they are a complement to the type comment. Moreover, do you prefer

type t =
   (** constructor 1 *)
   C1 of int
   (** constructor 2 *)
| C2 of float
   (** constructor 3 *)
| C3 of string

or

type t =
   C1 of int (** constructor 1 *)
| C2 of float (** constructor 2 *)
| C3 of string (** constructor 3 *)

?

i prefer the second one, which more easily gives me an overview of the 
type. But it's only a matter of taste ;-)

Anyway, thanks for our interest

--
Maxence



-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr