2013/4/8 Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com
Can't we just add some features to haddock? There are a lot of ways
to improve haddock a lot, and no one is doing them, so my impression
is that haddock doesn't really have active maintainers. Adding a
whole new backend seems risky, unless it results
Johan Tibell wrote:
I suggest that we implement an alternative haddock syntax that's a
superset of Markdown.
Here is a previous thread on this exact topic, from five years ago:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2008-February/039846.html
It mentions a few additional shades of
On 6 April 2013 01:57, John Wiegley jo...@fpcomplete.com wrote:
Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com writes:
I suggest that we implement an alternative haddock syntax that's a
superset
of Markdown.
Definite +1 from me too.
+1
Conrad.
___
And cpphs strips C comments too. :-)
But seriously, John's use-case is the exact opposite of what you suggest. John
wants to keep the # inside the comment block. You suggest to remove the
comment-block altogether?
When I checked the example with cpphs, it turns out that the # line is
Could you elaborate a bit on which markdown features you support (or
even better: write it into your module haddocks)?
Thinks like
- autolink detection
- ```language blocks?
Also, you build on performance-oriented libraries - it would be cool if
you could make a small benchmark comparing with
* Malcolm Wallace malcolm.wall...@me.com [2013-04-08 10:00:11+0100]
And cpphs strips C comments too. :-)
But seriously, John's use-case is the exact opposite of what you
suggest. John wants to keep the # inside the comment block. You
suggest to remove the comment-block altogether?
No, my
* Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com [2013-04-08 10:18:32+1000]
On 8 April 2013 07:12, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
Looks like a bug in cpphs to me (CC'ing Malcolm). It should respect
comments. E.g. GNU cpp strips C comments.
Not quite:
+++ John MacFarlane [Apr 05 13 16:04 ]:
I like markdown and use it all the time. While I acknowledge the
problems that have been pointed out, markdown has the advantage of being
easily readable as it is in the source document, and not looking like
markup.
But I do want to point out one
Can't we just add some features to haddock? There are a lot of ways
to improve haddock a lot, and no one is doing them, so my impression
is that haddock doesn't really have active maintainers. Adding a
whole new backend seems risky, unless it results in new maintainers
joining.
For my personal
On 8 Apr 2013, at 14:52, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
In my opinion, it is perfectly valid to have intentional preprocessor
directives inside Haskell comments.
Could you give an example where this is useful?
... macro expansions inside the comments are rather exotic.
{- | Some module
Отправлено с iPad
08.04.2013, в 21:44, Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com написал(а):
Can't we just add some features to haddock?
No, we can't. At the very least we should FIX haddock before adding features.
There are a lot of ways
to improve haddock a lot, and no one is doing them, so my
On 9 April 2013 05:08, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
Отправлено с iPad
08.04.2013, в 21:44, Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com написал(а):
Can't we just add some features to haddock?
No, we can't. At the very least we should FIX haddock before adding features.
How specifically does
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 April 2013 05:08, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
Отправлено с iPad
08.04.2013, в 21:44, Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com написал(а):
Can't we just add some features to haddock?
No, we can't. At
It supports ```language blocks, but not autolink detection. I have not
fully documented which features are supported. I also haven't done any
performance analysis versus other tools, simply because my goal is in no
way high efficiency. It is fast enough for my use cases, and I don't intend
to
Looks like a bug in cpphs to me (CC'ing Malcolm). It should respect
comments. E.g. GNU cpp strips C comments.
Roman
* John MacFarlane j...@berkeley.edu [2013-04-05 16:04:32-0700]
I like markdown and use it all the time. While I acknowledge the
problems that have been pointed out, markdown has
On 8 April 2013 07:12, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
Looks like a bug in cpphs to me (CC'ing Malcolm). It should respect
comments. E.g. GNU cpp strips C comments.
Not quite: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/4836
Roman
* John MacFarlane j...@berkeley.edu [2013-04-05
+1 for concistency.
Also, consider interop with non-haskell environments. For example showing
the documentation of a function in emacs, eclipse, on github, and from a
javascript library.
All of these can be engineered around, and tooling can be provided.
But let me give an example: the other
I think this thread has went to became a quest for One True Markup
Language...
I would like to propose a different approach: while we are at extending
Haddock why not make it possible to choose from a set of different
documentation plugins? Something that works akin to the type: Text -
On 4 Apr 2013, at 22:53, Aleksey Khudyakov wrote:
If we are going to change haddock syntax we should add ability to add
math formulae to documentation. It's not currently possible and it makes
documenting numeric code properly difficult.
How about support for .lhs files?
- both those with
On 5 April 2013 12:20, Andrew Butterfield
andrew.butterfi...@scss.tcd.ie wrote:
On 4 Apr 2013, at 22:53, Aleksey Khudyakov wrote:
If we are going to change haddock syntax we should add ability to add
math formulae to documentation. It's not currently possible and it makes
documenting numeric
I'm not proposing the LaTeX is used for hyperlinking the
reference - hence my comment about nicely integrating
Perhaps a \begin{haddock} ... \end{haddock} environment* ?
* This would only affect those using LaTeX/lhs - everyone else could haddock**
as usual
** haddock = whatever
Hi,
I also support the idea of having Markdown for Haddock. Using some well
established markup language would make Haddock much easier to adopt and use.
While I like the idea of allowing any markup language (let's say supported
by Pandoc) and freedom it gives to developers, it also has also
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Petr Pudlák petr@gmail.com wrote:
While I like the idea of allowing any markup language (let's say supported
by Pandoc) and freedom it gives to developers, it also has also drawbacks:
It makes contributing more difficult, if a project uses some wierd,
Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com writes:
I suggest that we implement an alternative haddock syntax that's a superset
of Markdown.
Definite +1 from me too.
--
John Wiegley
FP Complete Haskell tools, training and consulting
http://fpcomplete.com johnw
Personally I think Markdown sucks, although perhaps less than Haddock
markup.
Still:
* No document meta data
* No code block meta data like language for syntax highlighting
* No tables
* No footnotes
* HTML fallback is insecure
* Confusing syntax (is it []() or ()[] for links?)
* Syntax that
I forgot the mention the craziness with the *significant trailing
whitespace*.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:49 PM, dag.odenh...@gmail.com
dag.odenh...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I think Markdown sucks, although perhaps less than Haddock
markup.
Still:
* No document meta data
* No code
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Kim-Ee Yeoh k...@atamo.com wrote:
Could you say something about /why/ you make the suggestion? I, for
one, would be happy to google and read links, but what's missing from
that experience would be input from a fellow haskeller. In context. In
real-time. On
I like markdown and use it all the time. While I acknowledge the
problems that have been pointed out, markdown has the advantage of being
easily readable as it is in the source document, and not looking like
markup.
But I do want to point out one problem with markdown as a format for
Hi all,
Haddock's current markup language leaves something to be desired once
you want to write more serious documentation (e.g. several paragraphs
of introductory text at the top of the module doc). Several features
are lacking (bold text, links that render as text instead of URLs,
inline HTML).
Yes please!
-E
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Haddock's current markup language leaves something to be desired once
you want to write more serious documentation (e.g. several paragraphs
of introductory text at the top of the module doc).
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 06:41:19PM +0100, Edsko de Vries wrote:
Yes please!
+1 as well. I find the current syntax too restrictive…
iustin
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Haddock's current markup language leaves something to be desired
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Haddock's current markup language leaves something to be desired once
you want to write more serious documentation (e.g. several paragraphs
of introductory text at the top of the module doc). Several features
A sane markup for haddock would be greatly appreciated. I've grown
tired of noticing highlighted words arising from unescaped quotes all
over hackage.
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:49:04 -0700 Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi all,
Haddock's current markup language leaves something to be
I humbly suggest reStructuredText rather than Markdown, which is what
is used by the Python community for documentation. Since it's specifically
made for documentation it may be nicer. But, I don't want to spark
a format argument.
There is also the Pandoc program, which is a universal-ish
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Simon Heath icefo...@gmail.com wrote:
I humbly suggest reStructuredText rather than Markdown, which is what
is used by the Python community for documentation. Since it's specifically
made for documentation it may be nicer. But, I don't want to spark
a format
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Kim-Ee Yeoh k...@atamo.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Simon Heath icefo...@gmail.com wrote:
I humbly suggest reStructuredText rather than Markdown, which is what
is used by the Python community for documentation. Since it's
specifically
made
On 4 April 2013 20:49, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Haddock's current markup language leaves something to be desired once
you want to write more serious documentation (e.g. several paragraphs
of introductory text at the top of the module doc). Several features
are
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest that we implement an alternative haddock syntax that's a
superset of Markdown. It's a superset in the sense that we still want
to support linkifying Haskell identifiers, etc. Modules that want to
use the new
Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest that we implement an alternative haddock syntax that's a
superset of Markdown. It's a superset in the sense that we still want
to support linkifying Haskell
On 5/04/2013, at 12:34 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:
Markdown has won. Look at all the big programming sites out there,
from GitHub to StackOverflow, they all use a superset of Markdown.
Yes, but they tend to use _different_ supersets of Markdown.
Would it be too much to ask that a notation be
Would it be too much to ask that a notation be used which has
a formal syntax and a formal semantics?
We will document our superset, sure. That's what others did as well.
The point is using Markdown as the shared base.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
+++ Simon Heath [Apr 04 13 13:04 ]:
I humbly suggest reStructuredText rather than Markdown, which is what
is used by the Python community for documentation. Since it's specifically
made for documentation it may be nicer. But, I don't want to spark
a format argument.
There is also the
On 5/04/2013, at 2:00 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:
Would it be too much to ask that a notation be used which has
a formal syntax and a formal semantics?
We will document our superset, sure. That's what others did as well.
The point is using Markdown as the shared base.
Nononono.
Sure, the
On 5 April 2013 13:24, Richard A. O'Keefe o...@cs.otago.ac.nz wrote:
On 5/04/2013, at 2:00 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:
Would it be too much to ask that a notation be used which has
a formal syntax and a formal semantics?
We will document our superset, sure. That's what others did as well.
The
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think so; this was one of the big issues recently when people
were trying to get Gruber to actually _do_ something with Markdown as
there were all these corner cases.
In that case, surely this is an
On 5 April 2013 15:49, Kim-Ee Yeoh k...@atamo.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think so; this was one of the big issues recently when people
were trying to get Gruber to actually _do_ something with Markdown as
there
46 matches
Mail list logo
