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 <ok@cs.otago.ac.nz> wrote:

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