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


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.


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

Reply via email to