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

Vlad Dumitrescu vladdu55@REDACTED
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
> 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.

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.

best regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20070918/8ae796d2/attachment.htm>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list