On 30/08/13 10:30, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
> I would also like to remind you that if there's something that you'd
> like to see in Haddock or something that you feel is broken, a good way
> express this is to make a ticket on the Haddock Trac[2].
I made one:
http://trac.haskell.org/haddock/ticke
On 02/09/13 19:43, John MacFarlane wrote:
> When the proposal was first being discussed, I suggested that instead of
> adding markdown support to haddock, one might enhance the existing
> haddock markup, making it more expressive, so that it could encode the same
> range of structural features as m
When the proposal was first being discussed, I suggested that instead of
adding markdown support to haddock, one might enhance the existing
haddock markup, making it more expressive, so that it could encode the same
range of structural features as markdown. If I'm not mistaken, currently
haddock d
On 01/09/13 13:59, Niklas Hambüchen wrote:
> On 01/09/13 04:27, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
>> It doesn't have to be 1-to-1 but the features have to be expressible in
>> both: it's useless if we have different features with one syntax but not
>> the other.
>
> I don't find that useless. Markdown does
On 01/09/13 04:27, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
> It doesn't have to be 1-to-1 but the features have to be expressible in
> both: it's useless if we have different features with one syntax but not
> the other.
I don't find that useless. Markdown does not have definition lists, but
we use a normal list
On 31/08/13 19:14, Niklas Hambüchen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I disagree.
That's fine, that's why the thread is here.
>
> While none of your detail points are wrong, they mainly focus on the
> fact that there is no 1-to-1 mapping between the existing haddock markup
> and Markdown. I don't think there n
Hello,
I disagree.
While none of your detail points are wrong, they mainly focus on the
fact that there is no 1-to-1 mapping between the existing haddock markup
and Markdown. I don't think there needs to be. If Markdown can do
something new, that something can be added; if something doesn't make
On 31/08/13 16:20, Carter Schonwald wrote:
> Is there an up todate copy of the haddock manual online anywhere?
>
No. You can build your own documentation. In Haddock directory, go into
‘doc’ and read the README on how to build it. That is also outdated
however: for example, it doesn't provide info
Is there an up todate copy of the haddock manual online anywhere?
On Saturday, August 31, 2013, Omari Norman wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk <
> fuuze...@fuuzetsu.co.uk 'fuuze...@fuuzetsu.co.uk');>> wrote:
>
>> Greetings café,
>>
>> Perhaps some saddening news for M
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk
wrote:
> Greetings café,
>
> Perhaps some saddening news for Markdown fans out there. As you might
> remember, there was a fair amount of push for having Markdown as an
> alternate syntax for Haddock.
>
>
This is a little off-topic, but the Haddoc
Greetings café,
Perhaps some saddening news for Markdown fans out there. As you might
remember, there was a fair amount of push for having Markdown as an
alternate syntax for Haddock.
Unfortunately, this is probably not going to happen for reasons listed
on the post I just published at [1].
This
11 matches
Mail list logo
