[erlang-questions] edoc: documenting "-type"

[Defnull]

My fault, type should be used in specs in order to appear in the 
documentation

On Friday, February 1, 2013 4:47:14 PM UTC+4, Defnull wrote:
>
> This syntax is broken in R15B03, I failed to make edoc use it.
>
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:30:43 PM UTC+4, Lukas Larsson wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It is not supported via the traditional edoc syntax, however it is 
>> supported by the new type documentation generation. If you write
>>
>> -type key() :: binary() | atom().
>> %% This type is awesome.  Really, it is great.
>>
>> The comment below the type will be included in the generated edoc.
>>
>> Lukas
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Richard Carlsson <carlsson...@REDACTED>wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-07-12 23:25, Daniel Goertzen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am trying to document a "-type" close to the top of my modules like 
>>>> this...
>>>>
>>>> %% @doc This type is awesome.  Really, it is great.
>>>> -type key() :: binary() | atom().
>>>>
>>>> ... but it collides with my module @doc entry above it ("multiple @doc
>>>> tag" error).
>>>>
>>>> Is there a right way to document types or is this not supported right
>>>> now?  The generated documentation shows all my types nicely, but I'd
>>>> love to have a bit of explanation appear with them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not supported right now, but it's a good idea. Thanks.
>>>
>>>    /Richard
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>> erlang-q...@REDACTED
>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/**listinfo/erlang-questions<http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions>
>>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20130201/50da302d/attachment.htm>