Yes, Phabricator/arcanist is probably the best way to do it, I agree. I was more wondering technically how we'd enforce it (just regex? parse/lex the code for top level definitions? etc). There are also other opportunities for linting here, so we should think about that a bit.
Anyway, good stuff! On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Johan Tibell <johan.tib...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Austin Seipp <aus...@well-typed.com> wrote: >> Of course, I'd also like it if this rule explicitly extended to >> top-level data types, type classes, etc as well. I believe that was >> the intention but I'm just making sure. :) > > That was the intention. > >> (Finally, I actually would like some kind of mechanical enforcement of >> this, but I don't think it has to be a hard rule - we shouldn't reject >> things on that basis alone. I'm not sure how we would do that anyway, >> though.) > > The way I suggest we do this, if we do this, is to add a linter to > Phabricator that adds a note to the code review that the new code > lacks the appropriate docs. That way we encourage users to add them, > without e.g. making validate fail or something similar. This is what > we do at Google (and FB too I presume). > -- Regards, Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/ _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
