2009/2/28 Colin Paul Adams <co...@colina.demon.co.uk>: >>>>>> "Colin" == Colin Paul Adams <co...@colina.demon.co.uk> writes: > >>>>>> "Gwern" == Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> writes: > Gwern> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Colin Paul Adams > Gwern> <co...@colina.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>> Having just read the Haddock manual , I am haddocking (may I > >>> copyleft that verb?) my code. > >>> > >>> But half-way through this data type, I discover that haddock > >>> rejects my non-haddock comments, although GHC is fine: > > >>> How can I document the components of each constructor? > > Gwern> http://trac.haskell.org/haddock/ticket/60 ? > > Colin> That seems to be a different bug - my haddock comments are > Colin> accepted fine - it's the plain Haskell ones (no ^) that it > Colin> complains about as a parse error. > > No, I'm wrong - it does seem to be the same problem.
In fact, it's not. I've added two new tickets for your problem: http://trac.haskell.org/haddock/ticket/95 http://trac.haskell.org/haddock/ticket/94 > Since the ticket has been downgraded to a minor problem, it seems the > Haddock team doesn't want to allow documentation of components, except > when they are named fields. Again, not the same problem. The ticket is about documenting empty data declarations on the same line, e.g: data Empty -- ^ A comment Since you can just put the comment above or below the declaration, I consider it a minor problem. We have more serious bugs to focus on :) The new tickets for your problem have been assigned major priority, though. Thanks, David _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
