haddock: record types with partially exported fields
hello, attached (M1) is an example of a situation, where haddock hides all fields of a record, just because one field is hidden. The result is that the other field is not shown in the documentation as well, even though it is exported. As an example for why hiding certain fields of a record might make sense, consider M2. There we export two functions for decomposing T: f and g, whereas f is a class function that can be used for other datatypes as well, and g is a function specific to T. The ugly fT function is hidden from the user. I'd wish myself a haddock output in which T would be shown in record style, but there would be a blank instead of fT or maybe something like "<hidden>". Cheers, Misha P.S. What's the right place to talk about haddock by the way?
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 07:54:56PM +0200, David Waern wrote:
2008/5/28 Misha Aizatulin <avatar@hot.ee>:
P.S. What's the right place to talk about haddock by the way?
haskelldoc@haskell.org
Could we have Haddock as a component on the GHC trac? It seems approriate, with Haddock 2 so closely tied to GHC.
2008/6/5 Ross Paterson <ross@soi.city.ac.uk>:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 07:54:56PM +0200, David Waern wrote:
2008/5/28 Misha Aizatulin <avatar@hot.ee>:
P.S. What's the right place to talk about haddock by the way?
haskelldoc@haskell.org
Could we have Haddock as a component on the GHC trac?
It seems approriate, with Haddock 2 so closely tied to GHC.
I'd rather see Haddock less tied to GHC, and for it to have it's own trac. But let's see what happens with the GHC documentation problem. If Haddock has to be bundled with GHC, it makes more sense for it to be in the GHC trac. David
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 11:32:23AM +0200, David Waern wrote:
2008/6/5 Ross Paterson <ross@soi.city.ac.uk>:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 07:54:56PM +0200, David Waern wrote:
2008/5/28 Misha Aizatulin <avatar@hot.ee>:
P.S. What's the right place to talk about haddock by the way?
haskelldoc@haskell.org
Could we have Haddock as a component on the GHC trac?
It seems approriate, with Haddock 2 so closely tied to GHC.
I'd rather see Haddock less tied to GHC, and for it to have it's own trac. But let's see what happens with the GHC documentation problem. If Haddock has to be bundled with GHC, it makes more sense for it to be in the GHC trac.
If you do want haddock to have its own trac instance then you can now create one on community, as described here: http://community.haskell.org/admin/using_project.html#trac Thanks Ian
2008/6/11 Ian Lynagh <igloo@earth.li>:
If you do want haddock to have its own trac instance then you can now create one on community, as described here: http://community.haskell.org/admin/using_project.html#trac
Ah, that's great! Didn't know that trac support have been added to community. Does anyone else have a preference of where to keep the Haddock trac? Simon M? David
David Waern wrote:
2008/6/11 Ian Lynagh <igloo@earth.li>:
If you do want haddock to have its own trac instance then you can now create one on community, as described here: http://community.haskell.org/admin/using_project.html#trac
Ah, that's great! Didn't know that trac support have been added to community.
Does anyone else have a preference of where to keep the Haddock trac? Simon M?
By all means go ahead and create one on community. As you know in the past I've been in favour of keeping things lightweight for Haddock (i.e. a TODO list in the darcs repo), but since you're doing the maintenance these days, it's entirely up to you. Cheers, Simon
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 01:29:20PM +0200, David Waern wrote:
2008/6/11 Ian Lynagh <igloo@earth.li>:
If you do want haddock to have its own trac instance then you can now create one on community, as described here: http://community.haskell.org/admin/using_project.html#trac
Ah, that's great! Didn't know that trac support have been added to community.
Does anyone else have a preference of where to keep the Haddock trac? Simon M?
I don't mind where it is, just that there is one.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 02:57:53PM +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 01:29:20PM +0200, David Waern wrote:
2008/6/11 Ian Lynagh <igloo@earth.li>:
If you do want haddock to have its own trac instance then you can now create one on community, as described here: http://community.haskell.org/admin/using_project.html#trac
Ah, that's great! Didn't know that trac support have been added to community.
Does anyone else have a preference of where to keep the Haddock trac? Simon M?
I'd prefer it to be separate, on balance. Thanks Ian
2008/6/11 Ian Lynagh <igloo@earth.li>:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 02:57:53PM +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 01:29:20PM +0200, David Waern wrote:
2008/6/11 Ian Lynagh <igloo@earth.li>:
If you do want haddock to have its own trac instance then you can now create one on community, as described here: http://community.haskell.org/admin/using_project.html#trac
Ah, that's great! Didn't know that trac support have been added to community.
Does anyone else have a preference of where to keep the Haddock trac? Simon M?
I'd prefer it to be separate, on balance.
Separate it is. http://trac.haskell.org/haddock/ No content yet. David
participants (5)
-
David Waern -
Ian Lynagh -
Misha Aizatulin -
Ross Paterson -
Simon Marlow