On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So the advantage of passing the rest through uninterpreted is that > markdown then interprets it and we get lots of cool markup for free, the > disadvantage is that we get lots more markup that I don't > understand! :-) Thanks for this summary, Duncan. > There really is something to be said for being able to download a random > package, read the code at the documentation markup and be able to > understand it and modify it. If it's a simple common language like we > have at the moment we can do that. I worry about loosing that property. Have you looked at markdown? It's a popular and well-documented format and based on common conventions. I bet you'd have no trouble learning it, and I bet many other Haskell programmers *already* know it. (BTW, I just noticed that this mail message is in written in markdown.) > So yes we could make haddock not care so much and pass everything > through and then people could do whatever they liked with new markup > formats but I wonder if we cannot find a common language that we can all > agree on. Are there any particularly cool things in markdown that lots > of haskell developers want to use in their api documentation? My previous note listed some (pandoc-extended) markdown features I use regularly (while blogging) that are missing in Haddock. If I could, I'd use them in my code documentation. I'd like to hear from others about what markup features you'd like to have in your code documentation but aren't supported by Haddock. Cheers, - Conal
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
