I see the pluggable markup being pushed in this thread again. I just want to remind everybody that we currently have a flavor of a markup issue on github.
The ghc source code uses literal haskell, and it does not work well on github. http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2013-April/001099.html Any markup that is not widely supported makes it harder for third parties to support and parse. The solution is *not* to reimplement github in haskell, but to standardize markup as much as possible. Pluggable markup makes the probability that a github-like service, IDEs and similar can make use of the documentation arbitrarily close to zero. Alexander On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe <o...@cs.otago.ac.nz>wrote: > I should add that as a consumer of Haddock documentation > I can testify that fancier styling (in whatever format) > would be of little benefit to _me_. What I need is more > plain text and more examples. > > To be perfectly honest, most of the time when looking at > a Haddock page, I end up clicking on the Source button > because there are things I need to know that are in the > source but not the documentation. > > So I do agree that markup that doesn't get in the way of > a _reader_ who is looking at the source code is an excellent > thing. > > I say this as someone who had to read some Java today and > ended up stuffing it through a comment stripper so that I > could easily find what I needed to find. > > This thread is not about the "visually lightweight" aspect of > Markdown. That's a good thing. No argument there. > > The thread is about how well documented the notation should be. > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe