Scrap your boilerplate (but don't scrap them precious comments)

Peter Strand peter at
Tue Mar 1 03:13:54 EST 2005

John Meacham wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 05:20:18PM -0800, Ralf Lammel wrote:
>>It would really help to link the function signatures
>>with the function definitions in the sense of a limited
>>code browsing functionality.
>>I am sure this is not a new discussion topic,
>>but we really need this IMHO.
> Yeah, I have wanted some special haddock identifier which means 'include
> the body of the function here'. Since often, this can be the best
> documentation. 

I think haddock could be a lot more useful if it could extract
more information from unprepared input.

Just argument names in addition to types could be helpful,
sometimes they are meaningful and not just "x" or "xs" ;)

I remember, more than once, having looked up the code to
getProcessStatus to find out which boolean argument meant what,
for example..

Or, being able to link to and "export" source code as well,
pretty printed and crosslinked. (like doxygen[1])

Then you could use haddock to familiarize yourself with unknown,
non-haddockized, haskell code.

Or, thinking of it, one should perhaps just write a haskell frontend
to doxygen...



More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list