Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] ocamldoc and packing
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2002-09-25 (20:58)
From: Michaël_Grünewald <michael-grunewald@w...>
Subject: [Caml-list] Re: ocamldoc and packing
Maxence Guesdon <> writes:

> > Would it be possible to have a `-pack' option in ocamldoc, that works in
> > a consistant way with the homologous option of the compiler ? This is
> > not something `vital' but could help in build-automation.
> This is possible. Correct me if I'm wrong : ocamldoc -pack <final module
> name> ...

Although i have read it carefully, i did not spot this option in the
documentation for ocamldoc (from the `Ocaml System release 3.06'). I have
just read it (what is preterit for `read' ?) a little bit carefully with

 $ ocamldoc -pack -o pomme.tex -latex
/usr/local/bin/ocamldoc: unknown option `-pack'.

Info that helps:

$ ocamldoc -version
OCamldoc 3.06

> > It should create a single module containing the given modules. All
> > absolute module names should be prefixed with the final module name.
> Is that the desired behaviour ?

It sounds quite right. The desired behaviour is to keep consistence between
the description of modules (in documentation), and their hierarchy (from the
ocaml's point of view).

e.g. Given the source files named and, that describes modules useful in implementing line oriented
porotocols on the internet (a la FTP, SMTP, CDDB, and so on). I wish to
build a library that provides these modules, but more, with HTTP, FTP, SMTP,
etc... There would at end be a plethora of modules, and user could fas be
overhelm by them, so i imagined it was good style in packing what could be a
library of very tight bounded software components into higher level
modules, and distribute them into a library.

For instance the above mentioned modules could be packed into the module
`Textnet' that would come along in the library with modules Ftp, Http, Smtp,
etc ... So the documentation must reflect that modules Channel, Coding,
Line, Dialog, ... are in the Textnet module, and this is what (i think)
should do the pack option used in this case.

It could be also possible to use Makefile and sed/awk script for having a
dumb file automtically generated, with these modules into it (and
it can be a satisfactory answer for me).
Michaël Grünewald <>  - RSA PGP Key ID: 0x20D90C12
To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: