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 <ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.org> 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