| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
* Add table examples
* Add table types and adopt simple parser
Simple parser is done by Giovanni Cappellotto (@potomak)
in https://github.com/haskell/haddock/pull/577
It seems to support single fine full tables, so far from full
RST-grid tables, but it's good start.
Table type support row- and colspans, but obviously parser is lacking.
Still TODO:
- Latex backend. Should we use multirow package
https://ctan.org/pkg/multirow?lang=en?
- Hoogle backend: ?
* Implement grid-tables
* Refactor table parser
* Add two ill-examples
* Update CHANGES.md
* Basic documentation for tables
* Fix documentation example
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
* Improve documentation of Haddock markup.
- document that Haddock supports inferring types top-level functions
with without type signatures, but also explain why using this
feature is discouraged. Looks like this feature has been around
since version 2.0.0.0 in 2008!
- rework the "Module description" section:
- move the general discussion of field formatting to the section
intro and add examples illustrating the prose for multiline
fields.
- mention that newlines are preserved in some multiline fields, but
not in others (I also noticed that commas in the `Copyright` field
are not preserved; I'll look into this bug later).
- add a subsection for the module description fields documentation,
and put the field keywords in code formatting (double back ticks)
instead of double quotes, to be consistent with the typesetting of
keywords in other parts of the documentation.
- mention that "Named chunks" are not supported in the long-form
"Module description" documentation.
- fix formatting of keywords in the "Module attributes"
section. Perhaps these errors were left over from an automatic
translation to ReST from some other format as part of the transition
to using Sphinx for Haddock documentation? Also, add a missing
reference here; it just said "See ?"!
- update footnote about special treatment for re-exporting partially
imported modules not being implemented. In my tests it's not
implemented at all -- I tried re-exporting both `import B
hiding (f)` and `import B (a, b)` style partial imports, and in both
cases got the same result as with full imports `import B`: I only
get a module reference.
* Rework the `Controlling the documentation structure` section.
My main goal was to better explain how to use Haddock without an
export list, since that's my most common use case, but I hope I
improved the section overall:
- remove the incomplete `Omitting the export list` section and fold it
into the other sections. In particular, summarize the differences
between using and not using an export list -- i.e. control over what
and in what order is documented -- in the section lead.
- add "realistic" examples that use the structure markup, both with
and without an export list. I wanted a realistic example here to
capture how it can be useful to explain the relationship between a
group of functions in a section, in addition to documenting their
individual APIs.
- make it clear that you can associate documentation chunks with
documentation sections when you aren't using an export list, and
that doing it in the most obvious way -- i.e. with `-- |`, as you
can in the export list -- doesn't work without an export list. It
took me a while to figure this out the first time, since the docs
didn't explain it at all before.
- add a "no export list" example to the section header section.
- add more cross references.
* Add examples of gotchas for markup in `@...@`.
I'm not sure this will help anyone, since I think most people first
learn about `@...@` by reading other people's Haddocks, but I've
documented the mistakes which I've made and then gotten confused by.
* Use consistent Capitalization of Titles.
Some titles were in usual title caps, and others only had the first
word capitalized. I chose making them all use title caps because that
seems to make the cross references look better.
|
