On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Simon Marlow wrote: (snip)
I don't think that's entirely fair. Most of the libraries that come with GHC (and Hugs, and soon Nhc) are documented. See for example
Maybe I just always need awkward ones, but all I usually see here is a couple of general sentences for a module and a bunch of function names and type signatures. Even basic things like Data.List.nub, System.Random.split, etc. don't have any sort of explanation: you're left looking at real documentation, or experimenting with your guesses that were insprired by the type signature, to find out what the functions actually do. I am *not* complaining: I am very grateful for what GHC does offer and would love to have some time to help document stuff. But how the stuff at http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/base/index.html can be thought of as being reasonable documentation, I've no idea! (-: -- Mark