Haddock changes for next GHC release (was: Re: Transmitting Haskell values)

Joachim Durchholz joachim.durchholz at web.de
Fri Nov 7 00:49:37 EST 2003

Simon Marlow wrote:

> http://www.haskell.org/~simonmar/haddock-test/libraries/

Been there, taken a look, read to go :-)

One thing that I noted (and, in noting, remembered I was wondering about
earlier): on the main page, some modules are links, others aren't. Is
there some reason behind that? (This explanation might actually be
appropriate for the front page of the index.)

> Note that there is a single contents page listing all the modules
> with their packages,


> and there is a single index covering all modules in all packages.

Seen it, checked it, no strange effects seen.

I'm somewhat uneasy about the "instances" lists for type classes. This 
is information that's almost certainly going to be incomplete as soon as 
programmers start programming (and defining new instances of the classes).

> The index doesn't bogusly link to modules which don't contain the
> documentation for an entity (although it still lists modules with 
> just re-export the entity).  It also now keeps the distinction
> between different entities with the same name.

I think I'm not noting the difference now... ;-)

> There are probably some things that could still be tweaked - for
> instance, we've lost the text that used to appear on each package's 
> contents page.  I'm not sure where this should go, if anywhere.

If module hierarchy and package hierarchy are independent, there should 
probably be a separate documentation section for packages.
If, on the other hand, packages are the top level of the hierarchy, then 
it might pay of to handle them as if they were modules containing the 
real modules.

> Please let me know what you think...



More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list