I'll try that. But if it does this, why isn't the documentation on hackage generated with that option? (Sorry, I was mostly talking about it, since I don't always install documentation locally, I check it on hackage)
2011/12/6 David Waern <david.wa...@gmail.com> > 2011/12/6 Yves Parès <limestr...@gmail.com>: > > Hi, > > > > I noticed some time ago the fact that qualified imports doesn't affect > the > > generated documentation. > > It's kind of clumsy in case of libraries that define a lot of synonyms > > (vector and bytestring come in my mind first). > > For instance, in the package utf8-string: > > > http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/utf8-string/0.3.7/doc/html/Data-ByteString-UTF8.html > > > > Here, the documentation doesn't say that the > > utf8-string/Data.ByteString.UTF8.ByteString datatype used all along > comes in > > fact from Data.ByteString. > > If it were instead a new implementation of ByteString (as for > > bytestring/Data.ByteString.Char8.ByteString) the documentation would look > > exactly the same, so to disambiguate to reader has to crawl through the > code > > to get to the initial definition. > > (clicking on a 'ByteString' doesn't even redirect you to the original > > bytestring/Data.ByteString page) > > > > It should be written that this 'ByteString' is not a newly defined type > but > > instead a re-exportation. > > It should be simple to add some kind of "Re-export of <link to > original thing>" tag to the Haddock documentation. Feel free to add a > ticket for this feature to the issue tracker > (trac.haskell.org/haddock) with a description of how it should work. > > > It's even worse when you see the doc of a module that uses in the > meantime > > lazy and strict ByteStrings, or normal and unboxed/storable/<insert > flavour > > here> vector: you have to hover the type name to see which haddock page > it > > points to. > > > > In that case, a solution might be to indicate on top of the doc page > that it > > uses another module as a qualified import, and to keep the prefixes in > the > > function signatures. > > Maybe. But have you tried experimenting with Haddock's --qual flag? > > David >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
