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 wrote:

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

Read instances for record types accept the fields only in declaration order[1],

order is also important for semantics of deriving Ord, and for cost (or strictness) of deriving Eq. So, re-ordering would be confusing. - J.W.