David Luposchainsky <dluposchain...@googlemail.com> writes: > Hey list, > > I am strongly in favour of the proposal. As a pedestrian-level GHC > contributor, the *vast* majority of my time is spent trying to figure > out what certain things do, when the answer could be found in a one- > or two-line comment above a definition. > I'd like to second this. As an occassional contributor, I find myself wading through a lot of code to deduce functions' purpose. While I'm often pleasantly surprised by the quality of the notes scattered about the code, per-definition Haddocks would fill in the many remaining gaps and provide a nice overview of each module.
I agree that enforcing the quality of the rendered Haddocks is unnecessary. Once the language has been written there are many contributors (such as myself) who can further clean up the formatting. Cheers, - Ben
pgpnP8AxgwTf_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
