Validating with Haddock

[Mateusz Kowalczyk]

On 07/01/14 04:17, Carter Schonwald wrote:
> Well said points.
> 1) perhaps opening a ticket on ghc trac for your problem is a good next
> step. That way folks who are better at reading trac than email can help!

I'll do so tomorrow if I don't get any replies with tips.

> 2) if the pattern synonyms branch gets merged in, you'll have to upstream
> the associated changes to haddock too right?

It's not a show-stopper if Haddock can't document something. In fact
there are many things it can't document already (GADT type constructors
are an easy one). If someone writes the pattern synonym stuff for
existing Haddock it's not a problem. The proposed changes from
new-parser don't touch the parts that pattern synonyms would and if they
did, it'd be easy to merge. Usually GHC HQ folk patch up Haddock when
they change API so that it can still compile but everything extra tends
to be a ‘if we can get it to document the new bleeding-edge feature,
then great, if not, someone will make a ticket later’.

I actually attempted to make Haddock work with some extra stuff that it
currently can't document but because it so heavily depends on GHC, I
need my GHC tree validating for that too.

-- 
Mateusz K.