the Elephant in the room of course is that making anything happen requires
people contribute to hackage :)
https://github.com/haskell/hackage-server/
PRs are welcome, fire the missiles
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Richard Lewis
So there's clearly an important technical hurdle to be overcome for this: what markup language is to be used?; and where should the synposis be stored?
But I can't help thinking that the real work is in getting the synopses written. Encouraging package authors/maintainers to add them to their own packages is one possible way forward.
At Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:28:38 -0700, Tikhon Jelvis wrote:
Maybe we could have a guerrilla campaign of pull requests adding examples and a bit of explanation to every package you like that doesn't have them... That could also be a good way for beginners who want to contribute to start.
Another, as Tikhon suggests, would be for others to write them and send pull requests (or whatever) to the maintainers.
At Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:10:18 -0400, Dominick Samperi wrote:
I think this is a great idea, but it probably needs a complementary "nudge" if it is going to have a significant impact. This could be incorporated into the package submission process where the submitter runs a final check and is warned when examples are not provided for exported functions (unless an "opt out" flag is turned on for functions that have "obvious" semantics).
And yet another, as Dominick suggests, is effectively to require a synposis when a package is submitted. In CPAN, it's just become part of the culture, but it's also not required and you do find packages without a synposis.
If there's interest, I'd like to solicit some discussion on this part of the proposal on this thread...
There may also be a potentially significant difference between Hackage/Haskell and CPAN/Perl: most CPAN packages tend to be quite small and specific in their purpose and consequently have just a few, simple common use cases which suit a synposis very well. Hackage packages, on the other hand, are quite often more broad in their scope, often comprising many modules. Also, Perl has only one semantics for organising code at the finest level: sequential, imperative statements. In Haskell, some packages actually define whole coding styles. As a result, it's always pretty obvious how to write a few isolated lines of Perl code, but not necessarily so with Haskell code. Anyway, I'm sure all this can be overcome, and/or argued against.
Richard -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Richard Lewis j: ironchicken@jabber.earth.li @: lewisrichard http://www.richardlewis.me.uk/ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe