Markup language/convention for Notes?

[Oleg Grenrus]

You can write

@
code :: With 'Linked' -> Types
code = ...
@

The linked identifiers are a huge feature of haddock, makes
documentation a lot nicer to navigate.

Of course general syntax highlighter might also auto-link identifiers in
Haskell codeblocks, but none of markdown parsers has a support for such
hooks, AFAICT.

- Oleg

On 14.4.2022 0.15, Ben Gamari wrote:
> Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I'm open-minded, but I *really* want the text to be readily readable *in
>> the original source file*.  So
>> * Back-ticks are much better than `@` signs; the latter are too noisy.
>> * For code, backticks add clutter.  Maybe just intentend text can be
>> code?   (Unless it's part of a bulleted list.)
>>
> In Markdown region of text indented by at least four spaces denotes a
> code block element. Unfortunately, Haddock doesn't have a similarly
> noise-free syntax, requiring that lines of code blocks begin with `>`.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Ben
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
On 14.4.2022 0.15, Ben Gamari wrote:
> Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I'm open-minded, but I *really* want the text to be readily readable *in
>> the original source file*.  So
>> * Back-ticks are much better than `@` signs; the latter are too noisy.
>> * For code, backticks add clutter.  Maybe just intentend text can be
>> code?   (Unless it's part of a bulleted list.)
>>
> In Markdown region of text indented by at least four spaces denotes a
> code block element. Unfortunately, Haddock doesn't have a similarly
> noise-free syntax, requiring that lines of code blocks begin with `>`.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Ben
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs