On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 07:08:05AM -0400, Benjamin C. Pierce wrote:
> > I think you missed the point of Jerome's suggestion, which was (** ...
> > *) vs. (* ... **).  (Either that, or I missed his point...).  So my
> > variant was to show the difference at the start of each comment, where
> > it would be more immediate.
> 
> Aha -- sorry, I did miss the point.  So I'd like to make another a
> variant proposal... :-)
> 
>   - The comment is before the element:
>         (** fun 1 *)
>         val f : t
>         (** fun 2 *)
>         val g : u
> 
>   - The comment is after the element:
>         val f : t
>           (** fun 1 *)
>         val g : u
>           (** fun 2 *)
> 
>   - The comment is on the same line as the element:
>         val f : t   (** fun 1 *)
>         val g : u   (** fun 2 *)
>     (Most useful for record fields, probably.)
> 
> 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.

The (*< and (*> idea seems good and very intuitive. what is the reproch
against it you have ?

Another idea would be (but more cumbersome, and much less readable) :

(** comment before *)

(* comment after **)

or even (*< comment before **) and (** comment before >*)
(or maybe the other way around)

But still this is less handy when longer comments are used.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
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