Sounds like a good idea to me. I think `foo` works as we as @foo@ in
Haddock comments, and is a whole lot less obtrusive when looking at the
comments in their non-typeset form (which is all I ever do).
Simon
PS: I am leaving Microsoft at the end of November 2021, at which point simonpj@microsoft.com will cease to work. Use simon.peytonjones@gmail.com instead. (For now, it just forwards to simonpj@microsoft.com.)
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-devs On Behalf Of Norman
| Ramsey
| Sent: 19 October 2021 19:06
| To: ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Cmm comments are not Haddock comments---should this change?
|
| The definitions of the Cmm data structures are richly commented in the
| source code, but the comments are not Haddock comments, so the
| information doesn't make it into the Haddock documentation.
|
| As I refresh my memory about Cmm, I'm thinking of converting the
| existing comments to Haddock comments. The only downside I can think
| of is that the Haddock pages may appear more cluttered.
| Is there any reason I should refrain?
|
|
| Norman
| _______________________________________________
| ghc-devs mailing list
| ghc-devs@haskell.org
| https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.
| haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-
| devs&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C001a611e1b154df0c32d
| 08d9932b367b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637702637000
| 557769%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJ
| BTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=lgB5GeTImvl5mMDzgzQy2UD4X
| %2F3Qf0d1lopgGdiVsxI%3D&reserved=0
