Haddock comments---should this change?
|
| The definitions of the Cmm data structures are richly commented in the
| source code, but the comments are not Haddock comments, so the
| information doesn't make it into the Haddock documentation.
|
| As I refresh my memory about Cmm, I'
> As I refresh my memory about Cmm, I'm thinking of converting the
> existing comments to Haddock comments. The only downside I can think
> of is that the Haddock pages may appear more cluttered.
> Is there any reason I should refrain?
After sending email, I realized that I should make an iss
The definitions of the Cmm data structures are richly commented in
the source code, but the comments are not Haddock comments, so the
information doesn't make it into the Haddock documentation.
As I refresh my memory about Cmm, I'm thinking of converting the
existing comments to Haddock comments.
