Cmm comments are not Haddock comments---should this change?

Simon Peyton Jones simonpj at
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 will cease to work.  Use simon.peytonjones at instead.  (For now, it just forwards to simonpj at

|  -----Original Message-----
|  From: ghc-devs <ghc-devs-bounces at> On Behalf Of Norman
|  Ramsey
|  Sent: 19 October 2021 19:06
|  To: ghc-devs at
|  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?
|  Norman
|  _______________________________________________
|  ghc-devs mailing list
|  ghc-devs at
|  devs&
|  08d9932b367b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637702637000
|  557769%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJ
|  BTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=lgB5GeTImvl5mMDzgzQy2UD4X
|  %2F3Qf0d1lopgGdiVsxI%3D&reserved=0

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list