On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Malcolm Wallace <malcolm.wall...@me.com>wrote: > > I think the fundamental problem is that Haddock is now built on top of > ghc. So if a package cannot be built by ghc (for whatever reason, e.g. > missing C library dependency), then it cannot be documented either. This > is a good deal less than useful. A documentation generator ought to do a > reasonable job, even if the code it is looking at is technically > not-compilable. > > At work, we have a stand-alone documentation generator for Haskell, which > requires no compiler. Haddock also was once stand-alone. I think it might > be time to wind the clock backwards and retrieve this desirable property. >
The problem with that was you didn't get documentation if you used any GHC extension added within the past year or so. You can't win.... -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allber...@gmail.com ballb...@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net
_______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
