Quoting Sylvain LE GALL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > It think that this is an upstream problem. If mli files lack > > ocamldoc documentation, they may be written and sent upstream > > along with the makefile improvement for documentation generation. > > (I've already asked you about this in ocaml camp private mail > > with no reply). > > I remember to have replied... But i could be in error. > > I agree that upstream should comment the mli in order to have enough > info... But generating the doc corresponding to it, really should be a > packager responsability. If we can provide only one .odoc to generate Generating documentation, do you mean 'make doc'? > all the documentation, it is far more better than generating HTML, > man... documentation : it saves space in .deb and times on compile time. Why don't we compile ocaml files at install time? It would save space in debs, wouldn't it? > To my mind it will made user really more comfortable to have a HTML page > with all the exported function of a library ( even if there is no other > comment ). For example, i still need to generate lablgtk ocamldoc > documentation from mli... If something could do it automatically it > would save me a lot of time... AFAIK, ocamlbrowse does this already (interface to ocaml interfaces). -- Jérôme Marant
