Markup language/convention for Notes?

Sebastian Graf sgraf1337 at
Wed Apr 13 08:21:25 UTC 2022

Hi Devs,

When writing Notes, I find myself using markdown-inspired or 
haddock-inspired features. The reason is that I keep telling myself

 > In 5 years time, we'll surely have an automated tool that renders 
Notes referenced under the cursor in a popup in our IDE

And I might not be completely wrong about that, after all the strong 
conventions about Note declaration syntax allow me to do 
jump-to-definition on Note links in my IDE already (thanks to a shell 
script written by Zubin!).
Still, over the years I kept drifting between markdown and haddock 
syntax, sometimes used `backticked inline code` or haddock 'ticks' to 
refer to functions in the compiler (sometimes even 
'GHC.Fully.Qualified.ticks') and for code blocks I used all of the 
following forms:

Haddock "code quote"

 > id :: a -> a
 > id x = x

Markdown triple backticks

id :: a -> a
id x = x

Indentation by spaces

   id :: a -> a
   id x = x

And so on.

I know that at least Simon was thrown off in the past about my use of 
"tool-aware markup", perhaps also because I kept switching the targetted 
tool. I don't like that either. So I wonder
Do you think it is worth optimising Notes for post-processing by an 
external tool?I think it's only reasonable if we decide for a target 
syntax. Which syntax should it be?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list