i'd really recommend asking on #ghc and filing a ticket on trac preemptively. Different people reply better on different channels
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Mateusz Kowalczyk <[email protected]>wrote: > On 07/01/14 04:17, Carter Schonwald wrote: > > Well said points. > > 1) perhaps opening a ticket on ghc trac for your problem is a good next > > step. That way folks who are better at reading trac than email can help! > > I'll do so tomorrow if I don't get any replies with tips. > > > 2) if the pattern synonyms branch gets merged in, you'll have to upstream > > the associated changes to haddock too right? > > It's not a show-stopper if Haddock can't document something. In fact > there are many things it can't document already (GADT type constructors > are an easy one). If someone writes the pattern synonym stuff for > existing Haddock it's not a problem. The proposed changes from > new-parser don't touch the parts that pattern synonyms would and if they > did, it'd be easy to merge. Usually GHC HQ folk patch up Haddock when > they change API so that it can still compile but everything extra tends > to be a ‘if we can get it to document the new bleeding-edge feature, > then great, if not, someone will make a ticket later’. > > I actually attempted to make Haddock work with some extra stuff that it > currently can't document but because it so heavily depends on GHC, I > need my GHC tree validating for that too. > > -- > Mateusz K. >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
