Samuel, I don't suggest maintaining them in two places. Thats always a bad idea. I guess I lean towards the other end. I would rather have declared types in the source then undeclared types in the documentation. With the idea that the tools like dialyzer and edoc are going to pick them up soon.
that said it might be worth asking when they are going to be supported. Eric El oct 15, 2010, a las 2:04 a.m., Samuel escribió: >> 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]. > 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.
