[Haskell-cafe] GSoC Project Proposal: Markdown support for Haddock

MigMit miguelimo38 at yandex.ru
Mon Apr 8 21:08:13 CEST 2013

Отправлено с iPad

08.04.2013, в 21:44, Evan Laforge <qdunkan at gmail.com> написал(а):

> Can't we just add some features to haddock?  

No, we can't. At the very least we should FIX haddock before adding features.

> There are a lot of ways
> to improve haddock a lot, and no one is doing them, so my impression
> is that haddock doesn't really have active maintainers.  Adding a
> whole new backend seems risky, unless it results in new maintainers
> joining.
> For my personal bikeshed contribution, I would like to see haddock
> move in the way of fewer markup characters and rules, not more.  Since
> haddock is not "statically checked", the only way to find out if I put
> in an error is to run haddock and then visually inspect the output,
> unless of course it was a syntax error, in which case the error
> message is often not very good.  I can easily haddock individual files
> since I have a custom build system, but I imagine cabal users would
> have to haddock the entire project every time.  I regularly see
> haddock errors in released packages so I'm not the only one.
> There are lots of ways to improve haddock a lot.  For example, better
> parse error messages.  Make ""s smarter so they don't try to link
> things that are obviously not modules.  Or complain if it's not a
> module.  Or better, get rid of them entirely and use single quotes for
> that.  And make single quotes work for non-imported symbols.
> Incremental support for cabal.  Perhaps even deprecate @ and use ' for
> that too.
> One thing I think HTML got right is that there are only two characters
> that need to be quoted.  Of course that's at the cost of all the
> markup being wordy, but the more you move in the markup-style DWIM the
> more little rules you have to remember.
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Would it be too much to ask that a notation be used which has
>>> a formal syntax and a formal semantics?
>> We will document our superset, sure. That's what others did as well.
>> The point is using Markdown as the shared base.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list