[erlang-questions] I want documentation of Erlang in EDoc format
Tue Sep 18 14:36:48 CEST 2007
On 9/18/07, Aaron Denney <wnoise@REDACTED> wrote:
> That seems reasonable. But it would be nice to have the type
> information available to enable tools like dialyzer to check
> implementation against spec where appropriate. Even if you think
> giving type signatures for functions is too much work for not enough
> benefit, having the types defined so that everyone used the same ones
> in their own documentation, would be very helpful.
I just stumbled on this: the latest erl_parse.yrl contains some stuff
related to adding type annotations to record definitions and specifying
function type signatures. It doesn't seem to be functional yet - at least
when I try it I get some internal crashes in erl_parse. So I suppose it's
something coming in R12.
If this was brought to people's attention before, I must have missed it and
I apologize for increasing the noise level.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions