On 9 April 2013 05:08, MigMit <miguelim...@yandex.ru> wrote: > > > Отправлено с iPad > > 08.04.2013, в 21:44, Evan Laforge <qdun...@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.tib...@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@haskell.org >>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe