[wg-camlp4] Structure/signature attributes suggestion

[Alain Frisch]

What about using regular item attributes for section headers?  This 
might be not so nice conceptually, but would there be actual problems 
with this approach?

-- Alain

On 10/11/2013 11:19 PM, Leo White wrote:
>> Are you asking for allowing:
>>
>>   type t = ...
>>
>>   [@@@doc.section ....]
>>
>>   and s = ...
>>
>>
>> ?
>
> Yes
>
>> Honestly, I'm not yet convinced this is really necessary.  Do we really need to split documentation sections in such
>> places?
>
> I think that large files of recursive type definitions, as are quite
> common in OCaml, are quite likely to want section headers. I am also
> hoping to be backwards-compatible with existing OCamldoc, which I think
> supports such comments.
>
>> But if we go this way, I'd be inclined to look again at an early proposal of considering groups of declarations
>> as successive items (similarly to Types), so that attached item attributes can be represented more uniformly (in the
>> signature_item and structure_item records).
>
> I think that will be more work than making type_declaration a variant
> type with a Ptyp_attribute constructor. However it may be a little
> neater.
>
> Regards,
>
> Leo
>