Difference between revisions of "Haddock/Development ideas"

From HaskellWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(doctest does the QC stuff)
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
There would be a number of benefits if [[GHC]]'s parser were extended to understand the [[Haddock]] documentation markup and then Haddock changed to use the [[GHC/As a library|GHC API]]:
+
Most of these ideas are '''very''' old, but some may still be relevant.
  
−
* Haddock would get full support for GHC's various syntactic extensions.
 
−
* Haddock would understand <code>{#- LINE -#}</code> pragmas which would allow it to generate links to the original source code.
 
−
* Haddock would get much better error messages.
 
−
* Haddock could infer types for functions with no explicit type signature.
 
−
* GHCi and IDEs like [[hIDE]] and [[Visual Haskell]] would be able to display API documentation in more convenient ways like in this [http://haste.dyndns.org:8080/ Haste] screenshot:
 
−
[[Image:Haste_screenshot_hovering.png]]
 
−
 
−
* Haddock could accept module parameters with space after "-- #" ("-- #hide" is accepted nowadays, but "-- # hide" not)
 
 
* It would be good to have a recursive flag that would operate on all the .hs and .lhs files under a single directory.
 
* It would be good to have a recursive flag that would operate on all the .hs and .lhs files under a single directory.
−
 
+
* There should be an annotation to include a function's entire definition in the documentation. This would be useful for functions like <hask>(.)</hask> and <hask>mapM</hask> where the definition is the clearest possible documentation.
−
* It would be nice if haddock is able to parse more user defined operators like (#).
+
* There should be an option to include a simplified implementation of a function that is equivalent to the one in the code. For instance, instead of showing a complex implementation of List.length that makes use of stream fusion we could show a simple one based on foldl'.
−
 
+
* Optionally [http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2008-January/038211.html show qualifications of identifiers], that is print <hask>Sequence.map</hask> rather than <hask>map</hask>, <hask>Music.T</hask> rather than just <hask>T</hask>. The option for haddock could be <code>--qualification QUAL</code>
−
* Haddock should emit the documentation about instances. For example, it's important to document that the Data.Map instance of Foldable only folds over the values and not the keys.
+
**  <code>none</code>  (default) strip off qualification (just <hask>map</hask>)
 +
**  <code>orig</code>  show the identifiers as they are written in the module (e.g. <hask>map</hask> or <hask>List.map</hask>)
 +
**  <code>full</code>  show all identifiers with full qualification (<hask>Data.List.map</hask>)

Latest revision as of 19:11, 14 March 2014

Most of these ideas are very old, but some may still be relevant.

  • It would be good to have a recursive flag that would operate on all the .hs and .lhs files under a single directory.
  • There should be an annotation to include a function's entire definition in the documentation. This would be useful for functions like (.) and mapM where the definition is the clearest possible documentation.
  • There should be an option to include a simplified implementation of a function that is equivalent to the one in the code. For instance, instead of showing a complex implementation of List.length that makes use of stream fusion we could show a simple one based on foldl'.
  • Optionally show qualifications of identifiers, that is print Sequence.map rather than map, Music.T rather than just T. The option for haddock could be --qualification QUAL
    • none (default) strip off qualification (just map)
    • orig show the identifiers as they are written in the module (e.g. map or List.map)
    • full show all identifiers with full qualification (Data.List.map)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.haskell.org/index.php?title=Haddock/Development_ideas&oldid=57669"