Cmm comments are not Haddock comments---should this change?
Simon Peyton Jones
simonpj at microsoft.com
Wed Oct 20 07:16:10 UTC 2021
Sounds like a good idea to me. I think `foo` works as we as @foo@ in
Haddock comments, and is a whole lot less obtrusive when looking at the
comments in their non-typeset form (which is all I ever do).
PS: I am leaving Microsoft at the end of November 2021, at which point simonpj at microsoft.com will cease to work. Use simon.peytonjones at gmail.com instead. (For now, it just forwards to simonpj at microsoft.com.)
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-devs <ghc-devs-bounces at haskell.org> On Behalf Of Norman
| Sent: 19 October 2021 19:06
| To: ghc-devs at haskell.org
| Subject: Cmm comments are not Haddock comments---should this change?
| The definitions of the Cmm data structures are richly commented in the
| source code, but the comments are not Haddock comments, so the
| information doesn't make it into the Haddock documentation.
| As I refresh my memory about Cmm, I'm thinking of converting the
| existing comments to Haddock comments. The only downside I can think
| of is that the Haddock pages may appear more cluttered.
| Is there any reason I should refrain?
| ghc-devs mailing list
| ghc-devs at haskell.org
More information about the ghc-devs