
I've seen many cases where a type is specified using a record, but it is
not used for simple cases. For example,
data X = X { a :: String, b :: String }
let t = X "abc" "def"
Thus the ordering of record elements is crucial and should match the one
shown in the haddocks.
It might be possible for haddock to have a button that sorts them, on
demand. That'd be the best of both worlds.
On 8 June 2015 at 08:58, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
On 8 June 2015 at 13:23, aditya siram
wrote: How would people feel about Haddock alphabetizing record accessors by default?
For example: data T { b :: ..., c :: ... , a :: ... } displays as: data T { a :: ..., b :: ... , c :: ... }
Seems as though projects that have large records like Cabal & Parsec would benefit from this.
In some (many?) cases, there is a logical ordering to the values. Considering my own code, the records in GraphvizParams here matches the ordering that they're used/found in the resultant Dot graph:
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/graphviz-2999.17.0.2/docs/Data-GraphViz.h...
Thanks! -deech
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic Ivan.Miljenovic@gmail.com http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-- Regards Sumit Sahrawat