Oops, forgot to reply all.
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 Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Alistair Bayley <alistair@abayley.org> wrote:How's about Creole?Found it via this:If you go with Markdown, I vote for one of the Pandoc implementations, probably Pandoc (strict):(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