I see the pluggable markup being pushed in this thread again.
I just want to remind everybody that we currently have a flavor of a markup
issue on github.
The ghc source code uses literal haskell, and it does not work well on
github.
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2013-April/001099.html
Any markup that is not widely supported makes it harder for third parties
to support and parse.
The solution is *not* to reimplement github in haskell, but to standardize
markup as much as possible.
Pluggable markup makes the probability that a github-like service, IDEs and
similar can make use of the documentation arbitrarily close to zero.
Alexander
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe
I should add that as a consumer of Haddock documentation I can testify that fancier styling (in whatever format) would be of little benefit to _me_. What I need is more plain text and more examples.
To be perfectly honest, most of the time when looking at a Haddock page, I end up clicking on the Source button because there are things I need to know that are in the source but not the documentation.
So I do agree that markup that doesn't get in the way of a _reader_ who is looking at the source code is an excellent thing.
I say this as someone who had to read some Java today and ended up stuffing it through a comment stripper so that I could easily find what I needed to find.
This thread is not about the "visually lightweight" aspect of Markdown. That's a good thing. No argument there.
The thread is about how well documented the notation should be.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe