From: Sven <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 07:08:05AM -0400, Benjamin C. Pierce wrote:
> > 
> > I.e., *one* kind of (not very) funny comment marker, plus using the
> > indentation to decide whether the comment binds to the expression before
> > or after:
> > 
> >       if the comment is on a line by itself, 
> >       then if its indentation is the same as the following (non-comment) line
> >            then it goes with the following
> >            else it goes with the preceding
> >       else it goes with the line it's on.
> 
> Personnaly, i would be very strongly against using indentation to define if
> the stuff is before or after, after all, not everyone wants to indent things
> the same way.

I think that the above rules match rather closely what most people
write anyway. A documentation tool is based on conventions, as visual
as possible (you want to read the comments in the source too).

And I understand Benjamin Pierce's resistance to a multiplication of
strange symbols: they are harder to read than indentation.

But what am I doing in a discussion on automatic documentation, while
I almost never write any comment :-(

Cheers,

Jacques Garrigue
-------------------
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