Validating with Haddock

[Carter Schonwald]

i'd really recommend asking on #ghc and filing a ticket on trac
preemptively. Different people reply better on different channels



On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Mateusz Kowalczyk
<fuuzetsu at fuuzetsu.co.uk>wrote:

> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20140107/4d0f5f7a/attachment.html>