Proposal: require Haddock comment for every new top-level function and type in GHC source code

[Johan Tibell]

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Austin Seipp <austin at well-typed.com> wrote:
> Of course, I'd also like it if this rule explicitly extended to
> top-level data types, type classes, etc as well. I believe that was
> the intention but I'm just making sure. :)

That was the intention.

> (Finally, I actually would like some kind of mechanical enforcement of
> this, but I don't think it has to be a hard rule - we shouldn't reject
> things on that basis alone. I'm not sure how we would do that anyway,
> though.)

The way I suggest we do this, if we do this, is to add a linter to
Phabricator that adds a note to the code review that the new code
lacks the appropriate docs. That way we encourage users to add them,
without e.g. making validate fail or something similar. This is what
we do at Google (and FB too I presume).