From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA15901; Sun, 13 May 2001 22:10:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA15890 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Sun, 13 May 2001 22:10:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA28761 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 14:01:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pochi.inria.fr (pochi.inria.fr [128.93.8.128]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f49C1Mb10800; Wed, 9 May 2001 14:01:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from mentre@localhost) by pochi.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) id f49C1N118995; Wed, 9 May 2001 14:01:23 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: pochi.inria.fr: mentre set sender to David.Mentre@inria.fr using -f To: Markus Mottl Cc: Fabrice Le Fessant , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: [Caml-list] About documentation tools References: <15094.25994.675673.222337@cremant.inria.fr> <20010509125858.B28402@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> From: David Mentre Date: 09 May 2001 14:01:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20010509125858.B28402@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Markus Mottl writes: > Why not use e.g. Jean-Christophe Filliatre's ocamlweb? ocamlweb intents to be a tool to document source code as Knuth's WEB tool. In other words, it's more for internal code documentation than for user manual and reference guide. > How about the tool that INRIA uses? - Unfortunately, nobody has answered > may recent question on this here yet... :( As far as I know (despite my @inria.fr email, I'm not part of the Caml team), the tool used by the Caml team is specific and not ready for a public release, i.e. some shortcomings are solved in ad-hoc manner. But I agree that a recommended documentation tool would be a plus. It does not mean that such a tool should be very elaborated. The simpler, the better. And I also think that such a tool should be close to standard tool in other languages, mostly javadoc. It would help the transition from other languages (and multi-language developments). My 2 cents, Best regards, david -- David.Mentre@inria.fr -- http://www.irisa.fr/prive/dmentre/ Opinions expressed here are only mine. ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr