Hi Devs,
When writing Notes, I find myself using markdown-inspired or
haddock-inspired features. The reason is that I keep telling myself
> In 5 years time, we'll surely have an automated tool that renders
Notes referenced under the cursor in a popup in our IDE
And I might not be completely wrong about that, after all the strong
conventions about Note declaration syntax allow me to do
jump-to-definition on Note links in my IDE already (thanks to a shell
script written by Zubin!).
Still, over the years I kept drifting between markdown and haddock
syntax, sometimes used `backticked inline code` or haddock 'ticks' to
refer to functions in the compiler (sometimes even
'GHC.Fully.Qualified.ticks') and for code blocks I used all of the
following forms:
Haddock "code quote"
> id :: a -> a
> id x = x
Markdown triple backticks
```hs
id :: a -> a
id x = x
```
Indentation by spaces
id :: a -> a
id x = x
And so on.
I know that at least Simon was thrown off in the past about my use of
"tool-aware markup", perhaps also because I kept switching the targetted
tool. I don't like that either. So I wonder
Do you think it is worth optimising Notes for post-processing by an
external tool?I think it's only reasonable if we decide for a target
syntax. Which syntax should it be?
Cheers,
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
