RFC: hyperlinks in Haddock docs

Ross Paterson ross at soi.city.ac.uk
Tue Feb 1 11:14:04 EST 2005

On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 03:19:11PM -0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 01 February 2005 11:31, ross at soi.city.ac.uk wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 11:02:45AM -0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
> >> So the new approach is to try to build up a global table of the
> >> "best" destinations to link to for each entity.  The question is how
> >> to determine "best".  Here's my first stab:
> >> 
> >>   - A is better than B if A directly or indirectly imports B
> > 
> > Perhaps it should be the other way round: the lowest non-hidden module
> > that exports the name (if more than one such, fix on one).  This would
> > need most of GHC.* hidden, which is desirable anyway.
> Yes, maybe that's better, but it's not enough on its own.  For example,
> GHC.Exts exports Int, but there's no relationship between Prelude and
> GHC.Exts in the import hierarchy - so how do we determine which one is
> better?  (GHC.Exts shouldn't be hidden, BTW.  The rest of GHC.* probably
> should.)

If there is to be a single "best" place for each entity, then for a
datatype (or a data constructor) we want the one with the most complete
export (which need not exist in general).  In this case that has to
be GHC.Exts, nuisance that it is for non-GHC users.  Perhaps we do
need slightly different docs for different implementations after all.

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list