[erlang-questions] Style wars: junk comments
Tue Sep 18 14:20:56 CEST 2012
Both good points. Perhaps some standard way of making this distinction should be provided.
On Sep 18, 2012, at 1:35 AM, Vlad Dumitrescu <vladdu55@REDACTED> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Steve Davis
> <steven.charles.davis@REDACTED> wrote:
>> Also, in case the point got lost, it does let you know which functions are intended to be used outside the app, rather than just ones that must be exported for internal use within, say, the library itself.
> No, the point was not lost. There's nothing preventing edoc have
> another @tag with this meaning. The edoc+spec information can be kept
> at runtime too, inside a beam chunk, so that's not an issue. The full
> edoc comments are maybe too verbose, but by convention the first
> sentence should be exactly the succint description that you mentioned.
> Also, when presenting the doc/spec to the user at runtime, the spec
> could get simplified, if requested.
> What I mean is that I think that your suggestions can be implemented
> with tools that already exist and are in use, with the advantage that
> many modules already have this information in them. I am not very keen
> on having yet another annotation that in time will get out of sync
> with the code proper...
More information about the erlang-questions