On 16/08/13 11:08, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
> * Mateusz Kowalczyk [2013-08-16 08:16:35+0100]
>> In the future, please try with more recent version of GHC.
>>
>> This is no longer a parse error with HEAD or 7.6.3.
>
> Uhm, actually there is, with 7.6.3.
>
> % cat haddock.hs
> -- Main
>
> -- | B
* Mateusz Kowalczyk [2013-08-16 08:16:35+0100]
> In the future, please try with more recent version of GHC.
>
> This is no longer a parse error with HEAD or 7.6.3.
Uhm, actually there is, with 7.6.3.
% cat haddock.hs
-- Main
-- | Blah blah blah
(x, y, z) = (1, 2, 3)
% haddock ha
On 16/08/13 08:16, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
> In the future, please try with more recent version of GHC.
>
> This is no longer a parse error with HEAD or 7.6.3. Instead, given
>
> -- | 'y' and 'x' are here
> (x, y) = (1, 2)
>
> you get documentation generated for ‘x’ and Haddock doesn't seem to
>
On 15/08/13 23:07, jabolo...@google.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I cannot find a similar ticket, so it seems that no one has filed this
> issue before. As a general comment, I think this issue is a good
> example that perhaps docstrings should go in the AST.
>
> In any case, I would ask someone with a tra
Hi,
I cannot find a similar ticket, so it seems that no one has filed this
issue before. As a general comment, I think this issue is a good
example that perhaps docstrings should go in the AST.
In any case, I would ask someone with a trac account in Haddock to
submit this ticket for me. I apolo
In any case, it shouldn't fail with a parse error, since this is valid
Haskell.
Please file a ticket at http://trac.haskell.org/haddock (but first see
if it hasn't been reported before).
Roman
* jabolo...@google.com [2013-08-15 15:24:23-0400]
> Hi,
>
> I am using
>
> GHC: 6.12.1
> Haddock
