On 18/05/2011 10:39 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
On 18/05/2011 05:28 AM, Don Stewart wrote:
I'm intrigued by the idea of Hackage docs that don't use Haddock.
This is basically the reason I asked. Currently Cabal assumes that
Haddock is the only tool of its kind. If somebody built a better
Haddock, you wouldn't be able to use it. (Unless you named the
executable "haddock" and made it accept the same command options.)
Also, Haddock generates API reference documentation. It does not really
support generating tutorials, introductions, HOWTOs, and all the other
types of useful documentation that a project ought to have.
Apparently there's already a ticket for this:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/hackage/ticket/330
It seems part of the reason for inaction is that people would like a
general way of saying how to generate different types of documentation.
Myself, I would be content with a way to say "put *these* files with
documentation and tell the user where you've put them" as a first step.
We can worry about how to *generate* various types of documentation later...
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
