There are several problems here: 1) Not everyone can write beautiful clear English descriptions, it takes a certain skill. 2) The person writing the description is the author, who knows all the details, but the person reading the description doesn't - writing for a different audience is an even harder skill to master. 3) It's easy to miss something when updating a package. 4) Quality documentation places an ongoing maintenance burden on the package, and while test suites etc. make code maintenance easy, I don't know any way to automatically check documentation!
Why not email the maintainers of packages you think need a better description - ideally giving suggestions? I'd welcome that for any of my packages. Thanks, Neil On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 September 2011 23:59, Joachim Breitner <m...@joachim-breitner.de> wrote: >> Dear hackage package authors, >> >> this is a short message from your distribution package creators: Please, >> if possible, write good, not too short descriptions, and also keep them >> up to date. Of course, users browsing hackage will benefit as well. > > Also for potential users trying to work out what your library does! > > Something that I find particularly frustrating is all the libraries of > the form "hFoo: Haskell bindings to the Foo library"; well, what _is_ > the Foo library? > > -- > Ivan Lazar Miljenovic > ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com > IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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