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

[David Luposchainsky]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hey list,

I am strongly in favour of the proposal. As a pedestrian-level GHC
contributor, the *vast* majority of my time is spent trying to figure
out what certain things do, when the answer could be found in a one-
or two-line comment above a definition.

As for Richard's remark,

> So, I have to ask: why use Haddock? Do folks read the Haddock docs 
> for GHC? (I don't, but perhaps that's because the docs aren't so
> good right now.)

I find Haddock very useful for one major reason: it allows me an HTML
overview over all exported definitions (in the index), which is a big
plus when you're searching for things.

Greetings,
David/quchen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTsYVUAAoJELrQsaT5WQUsKawIAIMHt9Ha4qTWtJO6qwOjN5RD
JOx1MnuPlDLosbyE9+BlkEV1tRnnG/snyxwFTgmtFSO9fAV2FPZEbtzZ2AZd4xbb
VgORhTAeL1n1aBitGNaAzT1T60tS2JNict2S0pUWa0Qt3nYWwoRw1B+OOaZRuuaR
cHkOFKMbzU5knmeD/RyDIE+oRxZvjAKdAaaQ0vJ70ovNUptjtfDeX6Nxto65qFis
sKsWjsL++TgeOscejw7DNLeCei/cwrzjOSNOB6xFGAxPHUHZFvSkbuVAMNWIgbic
55tbDIog/l9P/N8RoUQh4PLjh3TG3xT3vsM5iiTKl3UZ7eTMpzmzAKhvikoHGOU=
=w6S7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----