[Haskell-cafe] On documentation
andrewcoppin at btinternet.com
Thu Jul 22 13:59:07 EDT 2010
Alexander Solla wrote:
> After all, the source is always structured in more-or-less the same
> way. Fragments of text with opaque -- unless/until you understand
> them -- combinators "join" two distinct concepts/types into functions.
> A chain of functions (potentially at various levels of abstraction)
> is a computation. You "use" these things by finding a chain of types
> (Start -> A), (A -> B), (B -> C), ... (N -> Goal) and composing,
> filling in additional details as necessary. Building that chain means
> doing depth first searches on a tree/graph of possibilities, and
> usually isn't so much fun. The library developer is in the best
> position to do exactly that, having already done it while constructing
> the library.
In Haskell even learning to use a library has an algebraic structure. ;^)
Actually, I was thinking just this afternoon... If you're writing in an
OO language, you can use UML to produce diagrams that give you a kind of
at-a-glance overview of the saliant parts of something. (Depending on
how much detail you choose to include in the diagram.) I wander if
anybody has a standardised notation that might be applicable to FP in
general or Haskell specifically...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe