<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 11:23 PM, aditya siram <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aditya.siram@gmail.com" target="_blank">aditya.siram@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">How would people feel about Haddock alphabetizing record accessors by default? </blockquote></div><br>It occurs to me that the Haskell Report specifies that Read instances for record types accept the fields only in declaration order[1], and it might therefore be preferable to maintain that order in API documentation.<br clear="all"><div><br></div><div>[1] <a href="https://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/haskell2010/haskellch11.html#x18-18600011.4">https://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/haskell2010/haskellch11.html#x18-18600011.4</a> see point 3 under "Derived instances of Read'</div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine associates</div><div><a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com" target="_blank">allbery.b@gmail.com</a>                                  <a href="mailto:ballbery@sinenomine.net" target="_blank">ballbery@sinenomine.net</a></div><div>unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad        <a href="http://sinenomine.net" target="_blank">http://sinenomine.net</a></div></div></div>
</div></div>