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
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?
After sending email, I realized that I should make an issue. It's #20528. https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20528 Norman
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
participants (2)
-
Norman Ramsey -
Simon Peyton Jones