i'd really recommend asking on #ghc and filing a ticket on trac
preemptively. Different people reply better on different channels
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Mateusz Kowalczyk
On 07/01/14 04:17, Carter Schonwald wrote:
Well said points. 1) perhaps opening a ticket on ghc trac for your problem is a good next step. That way folks who are better at reading trac than email can help!
I'll do so tomorrow if I don't get any replies with tips.
2) if the pattern synonyms branch gets merged in, you'll have to upstream the associated changes to haddock too right?
It's not a show-stopper if Haddock can't document something. In fact there are many things it can't document already (GADT type constructors are an easy one). If someone writes the pattern synonym stuff for existing Haddock it's not a problem. The proposed changes from new-parser don't touch the parts that pattern synonyms would and if they did, it'd be easy to merge. Usually GHC HQ folk patch up Haddock when they change API so that it can still compile but everything extra tends to be a ‘if we can get it to document the new bleeding-edge feature, then great, if not, someone will make a ticket later’.
I actually attempted to make Haddock work with some extra stuff that it currently can't document but because it so heavily depends on GHC, I need my GHC tree validating for that too.
-- Mateusz K.