[Haskell-cafe] Hackage package "synopsis" sections

[Mateusz Kowalczyk]

On 09/16/2014 06:04 PM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk <fuuzetsu at fuuzetsu.co.uk>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/16/2014 05:13 AM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
>>
>>> So again, I really like the idea of doing the same thing for synopses as
>> we
>>> have already for changelogs.
>>
>> I also do, I am here merely to investigate why Markdown is so strongly
>> preferred when Haddock does the job. Yes, the escaping was really bad in
>> the past. Yes, it had some weird bugs. Yes, it has been fixed. To my
>> knowledge, we have zero bugs open on the issue tracker[5]. There are
>> some that are to do with GHC lexer + parser but those are not relevant
>> at all here. If you know of bugs then please report them.
>>
>>
> I don't think I can make my point any clearer. I demonstrated that the bug
> I brought up four years ago still exists, 

…what? I just showed you that it no longer exists, linked to the source
files used to generate it with your own input and linked to output. The
bug was fixed, there's nothing more to it.

> that a separate file makes more sense

Yes.

> , that people are more familiar with markdown, that existing tools
> (editors and sites like Github) already have very solid Markdown support.
> You've used the same argument multiple times: Markdown has multiple
> flavors. I get it, you don't like Markdown. You made that clear. But many
> others- myself included- *do* like Markdown, and want to be able to use it.
> Your arguments don't convince me that my desires are invalid.

I don't neither dislike Markdown nor think your desires are invalid. I
am only trying to understand what your problem with Haddock is. That's
it. You say there's a bug, I show that it's fixed. What else is there?

I only mention various Markdown flavours for a simple reason: it is to
deter any potential ‘Haddock should just support Markdown’ posts, like
seen early in this thread.

> I'm not opposed to Hackage supporting multiple flavors of README files
> (much like Github does). But I really dislike someone saying "you shouldn't
> be able to edit in the file format that you like, because I have an
> objection to it." If you don't like Markdown, don't use it. But please
> don't tell me "Haddock markup is sufficient, you should use that." If
> you're hearing that "Markdown is so strongly preferred," maybe you should
> accept that people prefer Markdown.

No, again, I didn't say what you have to use and I even told you about a
tool which can make it easy for you to write whatever you want in the
existing system.

> So my ideal is: Hackage chooses some Markdown implementation- I don't
> really care which too much- and adds support for README.md files. It can
> also add support for README.html, README.haddock, README.asciidoc, and
> README.klingon for all I care. If people run into problems because Github
> flavored Markdown is different than Hackage flavored Markdown... well,
> that's a situation that people using Markdown are used to already, and have
> come to terms with. I won't be put off by that. I already encounter that
> when I copy-paste something from a Stack Overflow answer into a Reddit
> comment. I can deal with it. People with objections to Markdown are
> perfectly free to use whatever syntax they want as well.
> 
> Michael
> 

OK, great. I'd still like to hear about this bug you mention as the only
thing you pointed out has been fixed in June.

Lastly, who is going to implement all this stuff? It's easy to wish but
I'm sure you have even less time than I do.

-- 
Mateusz K.