Oops, forgot to reply all. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Chris Smith" <cdsmith@gmail.com> Date: Apr 27, 2013 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Markdown extension for Haddock as a GSoC project To: "Bryan O'Sullivan" <bos@serpentine.com> Cc: I don't agree with this at all. Far more important than which convention gets chosen is that Haskell code can be read and written without learning many dialects of Haddock syntax. I see an API for pluggable haddock syntax as more of a liability than a benefit. Better to just stick to what we have than fragment into more islands. I do think that changing Haddock syntax to include common core pieces of Markdown could be a positive change... but not if it spawns a battle of fragmented documentation syntax that lasts a decade. On Apr 27, 2013 11:08 AM, "Bryan O'Sullivan" <bos@serpentine.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Alistair Bayley <alistair@abayley.org>wrote:
How's about Creole? http://wikicreole.org/
Found it via this:
http://www.wilfred.me.uk/blog/2012/07/30/why-markdown-is-not-my-favourite-la...
If you go with Markdown, I vote for one of the Pandoc implementations, probably Pandoc (strict): http://johnmacfarlane.net/babelmark2/
(at least then we're not creating yet another standard...)
Probably the best way to deal with this is by sidestepping it: make the support for alternative syntaxes as modular as possible, and choose two to start out with in order to get a reasonable shot at constructing a suitable API.
I think it would be a shame to bikeshed on which specific syntaxes to support, when a lot of productive energy could more usefully go into actually getting the work done. Better to say "prefer a different markup language? code to this API, then submit a patch!"
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe