In an ideal world, all GHC developers would also think about how to add Haddock support for the wonderful features they are adding, and code them up themselves.
In practice, Haddock support has never stopped a feature from getting into GHC, but I think people who do add features should also be willing to roll up their sleeves and help the Haddock folks support them, though maybe at a later point in time... Edward Excerpts from Carter Schonwald's message of 2014-08-14 01:43:50 +0100: > one thing I wonder about is how should we approach noting > "theres a new language constructor, we should figure out a good way to > present it in haddock" in this work flow? > because the initial haddocks presentation might just be a strawman till > someone thinks about it carefully right? > > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvrie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On 2014-08-14 at 00:09:40 +0200, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > I don't know what the GHC branch name will be yet. ‘ghc-head’ makes most > > > sense but IIRC Herbert had some objections as it had been used in the > > > past for something else, but maybe he can pitch in. > > > > I had no objections at all to that name, 'ghc-head' is fine with me :-) > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-devs mailing list > > ghc-devs@haskell.org > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
