So there is no way at all without looking at the code to know the type spec if you take the first route?
JW On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:04 AM, Samuel <[email protected]> wrote: > > No edoc still hasn't caught up. I am not to worried about that and don't > think we should let it hold us up. Edoc will catch up eventually (probably). > > What I don't like is maintaining two different versions of the typing > system, so I have to choose between having erlang types, but no types > in the documentation, or having documented types and no erlang types > (I vote for the first). > > Cheers > -- > Samuel > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "erlware-dev" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<erlware-dev%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "erlware-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en.
