2008/10/15 David Waern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/10/14 Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 06:06:03PM +0100, Max Bolingbroke wrote: >>> >>> (http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Annotations). >> >> When you say >> {-# ANN f id 1 #-} >> this means you are attaching (id 1) to f, right? >> >> I think that that syntax is very confusing. I'm not sure what I'd prefer >> though. Maybe parentheses, analogous to those in >> instance C (Maybe a) > > While we're on syntax, do you really need to refer to f? Can't it work > like Haddock comments, where the comment applies to the next > declaration?
It certainly can: I don't know what the arguments were in favour of or against positional documentation during the design of Haddock, so I can't say which syntax would be a better idea for this particular use case. One significant thing that positional (as opposed to named) syntax has going for it is that it's already the standard in a number of other programming languages. I'm happy to implement whatever syntax people want, but I need someone with more taste me to come to a definitive decision on what that syntax should be :-) In other news, my implementation of the updated annotation system is pretty much complete. Outstanding issues: 1) Syntax 2) How to get serialization. I'm currently using Data/Typeable alone, but it turns out that Template Haskell Names are abstract types and hence not deserializable (gunfold = undefined), and those are something we /really/ want to put in annotations. Argh! All best, Max _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
