[xmonad] does it make any sense?

[Don Stewart]

mailing_list:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 12:17:27PM -0500, Brent Yorgey wrote:
> > 2. People who know a bit of Haskell and want to get a bit fancier with their
> > configuration, or write some new extensions.
> > 
> > Andrea, it seems that this is the kind of thing you have started putting in
> > Documentation.hs (starting with the section "Writing new extensions"), but I
> > think this should probably go on the wiki instead.  The problem is that I
> > think this document, written properly, will be VERY long!
> 
> Well, what I have in mind is a brief (really) overview of the xmonad's
> internal working with reference (links) to the (quite good, I would
> say) haddock documentation of the code: main (now xmonad), the event
> handler, the X monad, and the layout type stuff.
> 
> About the last one, I don't know, maybe I'm just plainly wrong, but
> after the LayoutClass change, with the 0.4 release, I had the feeling
> that new modules contributions have decreased - we would need one of
> those Don's graphs to verify this... I repeat, I may be wrong, but I
> think that all the type class stuff could be difficult to grasp to the
> coders who could be contributing code for xmonad.
> 
> I think that a brief introduction for them could be helpful too. What
> do you think? Am I wrong with that?

I think you are write, Andrea. new extensions have dropped off, and some
contributors have complained about problems munging types on the irc
channel. There have been previous lulls in activity though, so its hard
to assign it to the type changes to layouts, without further data.

-- Don