[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [was: generation of ocamldoc HTML documentation for libs (via cdbs)] OCaml policy for documentation

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 10:41:20AM -0400, Mike Furr wrote:
> I like this for most packages, but I think we should have an exception for 
> -pack'd modules.  Maintaining the .mli for the packed module of a large 
> project is quite a bit of (redundant) work and removes some of the benefit 
> of using pack in the first place.  How about if we allow a .cmi to not have 
> a corresponding .mli iff it is a packed module and all of its sub-modules 
> have .mli's.

Sure, I think the idea behind this proposed rule was just to ensure no
interfaces were shipped with no mli at all. For packed modules I'm fine
to have only sub-modules .mli. Any idea on how to better formulate the
rule (without resorting to exceptions as in the quoted text above)?

Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48)  Zack: e la demo dema ?    /\    All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15)  Bac: no, la demo scema    \/    right keys at the right time

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: