[mercury-users] [feature request] (slightly) richer XML doc output

[Peter Ross]

On 4/17/07, doug.auclair at logicaltypes.com <doug.auclair at logicaltypes.com> wrote:
> Dear Peter,
>
> Hello!  Sorry for the delayed response.  The information you outlined is
> useful, but let me frame the question in a different light, as I'm not sure
> what you're offering is what will help me (it may, it's just I'm not sure).
>
> Say I have a library-defining module:
>
> ----
>
> :- module utils.
>
> :- interface.
>
> :- include_module utils.graph.
> :- include_module utils.random.
> :- include_module utils.series.
> :- include_module utils.xml.
>
> :- end_module utils.
> ----
>
> (just a note for completeness: utils.xml is also a library-
> defining module; whereas the other modules have implementation
> sections).
>
> If your refinement has elements for each of the included modules,
> then that is what I'm looking for.  However, if your refinement
> somehow sees that (in this case) utils.xml, utils.graph,
> utils.series, and  utils.random is not being used by module utils'
> implementation (because as a library-defining module, it only exports
> the sub-modules to create the protocol), and therefore does not include
> these includes as elements, then I'm still stuck looking for other
> means to build packaged library documentation.
>
Yes I wouldn't include those modules because they aren't used in the
current module.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-users mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-users at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-users at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-users-request at csse.unimelb.edu.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------