| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The circumstances under which this module appeared are completely gone.
The Hyperlinker backend no longer needs this module (it uses the more
efficient `Encoding` module from `ghc`).
Why no deprecation? Because this module really shouldn't exist!
- It isn't used in `haddock-library`/`haddock-api` anymore
- It was copy pasted directly from `utf8-string`
- Folks seeking a boot-lib only solution can use `ghc`'s `Encoding`
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
* Add tests for the identifier parser
* docs: Clarify how to delimit identifiers
(cherry picked from commit 0861affeca4d72938f05a2eceddfae2c19199071)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
* Metadoc stores a package name
This means that '@since' annotations can be package aware.
* Get the package name the right way
This should extract the package name for `@since` annotations the
right way. I had to move `modulePackageInfo` around to do this and,
in the process, I took the liberty to update it.
Since it appears that finding the package name is something that can
fail, I added a warning for this case.
* Silence warnings
* Hide package for local 'since' annotations
As discussed, this is still the usual case (and we should avoid being
noisy for it).
Although this commit is large, it is basically only about threading a
'Maybe Package' from 'Haddock.render' all the way to
'Haddock.Backends.Xhtml.DocMarkup.renderMeta'.
* Bump binary interface version
* Add a '--since-qual' option
This controls when to qualify since annotations with the package they
come from. The default is always, but I've left an 'external' variant
where only those annotations coming from outside of the current
package are qualified.
* Make ParserSpec work
* Make Fixtures work
* Use package name even if package version is not available
The @since stuff needs only the package name passed in, so it
makes sense to not be forced to pass in a version too.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
otherwise we can't test w/ e.g. GHC 7.4.2
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Change notation and add support for inline math.
Allow newlines in display math.
Add a command line option for the mathjax url (you might want to use a
locally installed version).
Rebase tests because of extra url and version change.
Respond to (some of the) comments.
Fix warnings in InterfaceFile.hs
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Currently we only use it only for ‘since’ annotations but with these
patches it should be fairly simple to add new attributes if we wish to.
Closes #26. It seems to work fine but due to 7.10 rush I don't have the
chance to do more exhaustive testing right now. The way the meta is
output (emphasis at the end of the whole comment) is fairly arbitrary
and subject to bikeshedding.
Note that this makes test for Bug310 fail due to interface version bump:
it can't find the docs for base with this interface version so it fails.
There is not much we can do to help this because it tests for ’built-in’
identifier, not something we can provide ourselves.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This is to disambiguate them from markdown links and will be require
with a future release.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
I get rid of the Monoid instance because we weren't satisfying the laws.
Convenience of having <> didn't outweigh the shock-factor of having it
behave badly.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The benefit of this is that the ‘top-level’ element of such lists is
properly wrapped in <p> tags so any CSS working with these will be
applied properly. It also just makes more sense.
Pointed out at jgm/pandoc#1346.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
I can not remember why they were wrapped in paragraphs to begin with and
it seems unnecessary now that I test it. Closes #307.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
They are much more useful to the users here.
|
|
|
We move some types out that are necessary as well and then
re-export and specialise them in the core Haddock.
Reason for moving out spec tests is that if we're working on the parser,
we can simply work on that and we can ignore the rest of Haddock. The
downside is that it's a little inconvenient if at the end of the day we
want to see that everything passes.
|
