[ redirected to libraries@haskell.org ]
At 2002-05-01 04:48, Simon Marlow wrote:
I'm pleased to announce version 0.1 of Haddock, a documentation generation tool for Haskell source code.
I take it this is the "standard" Haskell documentation tool now, that implementations of the standard libraries will use? I've been waiting for something like this.
I'd like Haddock to become a widely-used Haskell documentation tool, but I don't want to presume to call it "the standard tool". I'd like us to use Haddock to document the hierarchical libraries in fptools/libraries (indeed, that was the main reason I wrote it). Haddock is by no means perfect, but I think it's a step in the right direction. What do other people think? Should we adopt Haddock as the tool for documenting the libraries? This doesn't mean it will be a "standard" as such, merely that the reference implementation of the libraries will be marked-up using Haddock annotations. If people aren't comfortable with requiring a specific tool for generating the documentation from the reference sources, then we could perhaps standardise the annotation syntax instead. Nevertheless, we do *need* to document fptools/libraries in order that we (the GHC team) can release the next version of GHC. So excessive faffing around is not an option :-) Assuming that we adopt Haddock, I'd be grateful for any volunteers to help document everything in fptools/libraries - including the Prelude and Haskell 98 standard libraries (one of the shortcomings of our current library documentation is that one has to go elsewhere to find the documentation for these standard bits). Prelude & std library documentation can for the most part be culled from the Reports and various other resources on the web, and much of the other library documentation can be ported from the old hslibs documentation, suitably unDocBooked. I'll volunteer to coordinate the documentation effort. Cheers, Simon