[erlang-questions] Documenting records and .hrls with edoc
Wed Nov 8 14:14:57 CET 2006
Samuel Rivas wrote:
> I see. Until improved type definitions are available, would it be worth
> checking that the field names in the documentation are in the record
Yes, that's a good idea. Edoc is not doing much right now (in general)
to check that declarations actually match the code; it tends to just
trust what you write. This could be improved.
> For example, edoc already checks other things like function arity:
> %% @spec foo(bar, baz) -> 
> foo(_) ->
> Edoc will complain about bad arity in the specification. I do not know
> whether it is to expensive to do the same thing for records, knowing that
> they may change in a future.
It's not expensive, just a matter of programming. And I've had way too
little spare time lately, alas. Patches are happily accepted.
More information about the erlang-questions