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

[Ivan Lazar Miljenovic]

On 9 April 2013 05:08, MigMit <miguelimo38 at yandex.ru> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

How specifically does haddock need to be fixed?

>
>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe



-- 
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
Ivan.Miljenovic at gmail.com
http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com