Hi
i noticed that you often reply to feature requests by pointing to undocumented tools/features, either already released in secret, or forthcoming. not that it isn't nice to have those tools, but won't you lose track of your software and its capabilities at this rate (not to talk about your customers' confusion)?-)
None of my code is "secret", not all of it is yet useable. I do sometimes loose track of what software I've written, and have (once) started a project to write something I've already written. I am trying to put all my programs on my web page [1], but some are still missing. I do keep a paper list of all the projects I work on, along with their dependencies, pinned to my wall - its just that only a few people can come and check my wall :)
in spite of the option name, it doesn't seem Hoogle-specific at all, nor does it really fall into the remit of Haddock as annotation processor. i used to think that type info and such could be added to tags-files, but that is also not quite right - tags files can be extended with such info, but they have no room for tags without source code reference.
If you want to rename it to --summary, define the format more formally (Hoogle 4 repo has a parser for the format), and take on that work I'd be quite happy with that. Cabal also has a haddock --hoogle flag, renaming that to summary as well is fine by me. Persuading GHC to ship the summary.txt file with the HTML documents would still be up to you, but its relatively small, and if something depends on it, I wouldn't have thought they'd object too much. Thanks Neil [1] http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~ndm/