Hi, >> the point is that haddock.ghc is using the ghc api, which is >> (a) an internal api, or at least an api to ghc's internals and >> (b) still under rapid development. > > It's an exported, stable, documented and supported API - or at least I > believe that is the eventual intention.
The point here I think, is that we should develop against the *released* version of the GHC API, and then update our code whenever there's a new version. Currently, that only seems to happen once per year. So coping with that is acceptable, IMHO. I admit that there's a trade-off here. If changes were followed immediately into other projects, that might lead to better, more thought-through and immediate integration of features. But I think we should do integration later, to avoid bottlenecks in the development of GHC. I would certainly *like* it if those who implement new GHC syntax would propagate those changes into Haddock though. That way, they would also get to decide how new syntax should be rendered in the documentation. David _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list Cvs-ghc@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
