[erlang-questions] I want documentation of Erlang in EDoc format

[Kenneth Lundin]

On 9/18/07, Aaron Denney <wnoise@REDACTED> wrote:
> On 2007-09-05, Richard Carlsson <richardc@REDACTED> wrote:
> > and it is probably not worth the time and effort to move it into the
> > source files.
>
> 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 actually
> 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.

The formal type notation as discussed earlier will be used in the documentation
sources (both edoc and our other XML format) as soon as the syntax is
stable and supported by our tools. Today we have an informal markup in
XML for function signatures which we will replace with the formal type
spec syntax.

/Kenneth (Erlang/OTP team at Ericsson)
>
> --
> Aaron Denney
> -><-
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>