Hi Devs, When writing Notes, I find myself using markdown-inspired or haddock-inspired features. The reason is that I keep telling myself
In 5 years time, we'll surely have an automated tool that renders Notes referenced under the cursor in a popup in our IDE
And I might not be completely wrong about that, after all the strong conventions about Note declaration syntax allow me to do jump-to-definition on Note links in my IDE already (thanks to a shell script written by Zubin!). Still, over the years I kept drifting between markdown and haddock syntax, sometimes used `backticked inline code` or haddock 'ticks' to refer to functions in the compiler (sometimes even 'GHC.Fully.Qualified.ticks') and for code blocks I used all of the following forms: Haddock "code quote"
id :: a -> a id x = x
Markdown triple backticks ```hs id :: a -> a id x = x ``` Indentation by spaces id :: a -> a id x = x And so on. I know that at least Simon was thrown off in the past about my use of "tool-aware markup", perhaps also because I kept switching the targetted tool. I don't like that either. So I wonder Do you think it is worth optimising Notes for post-processing by an external tool?I think it's only reasonable if we decide for a target syntax. Which syntax should it be? Cheers, Sebastian