Ticket #76 (closed defect: wontfix)

Opened 7 years ago

Last modified 3 years ago

Non-use of __HADDOCK__ flag is not documented

Reported by: SamB Owned by: waern
Priority: minor Milestone:
Version: Keywords:
Cc: SamB


The documentation should mention that HADDOCK is no longer defined and is thus perfectly fine to use to protect Haddock 0.x from things it couldn't handle.

Change History

Changed 7 years ago by SamB

  • cc SamB added

Changed 6 years ago by waern

  • status changed from new to closed
  • resolution set to wontfix

The manual doesn't mention the __HADDOCK__ macro and I don't think it should. This macro has never been defined by Haddock itself, AFAIK.

Changed 6 years ago by SamB

  • status changed from closed to reopened
  • resolution wontfix deleted

I think *that* should be documented in the manual. Macros with names of the form FOO have a strong tradition of being predefined by relevant systems; think of STDC, GNUC, and OBJC in the C world and GLASGOW_HASKELL, HUGS, and NHC in the Haskell world. Because of this tradition, explicitly documenting that Haddock does not define and has not ever defined HADDOCK would be a very good thing to do, and if there were a good reference about what *has* traditionally defined this macro, it would be desirable to direct people to that.

You can see what confusion not having this in the manual caused me!

Changed 6 years ago by SamB

Oops... all of those underlined things, like FOO, in the previous message are supposed to be more like __FOO__. Too bad I can't edit it :-(.

Changed 6 years ago by waern

  • owner set to waern
  • priority changed from major to minor
  • status changed from reopened to new

Alright, I can see the usefulness of documenting this.

Changed 3 years ago by anonymous

  • milestone 2.5.0 deleted

Milestone 2.5.0 deleted

Changed 3 years ago by SimonHengel

  • status changed from new to closed
  • resolution set to wontfix

I agree that this would be useful. However, I don't know what/who previously defined __HADDOCK__, so I can't extend the documentation accordingly.

I still think it is not mandatory nor a defect, rather a nice to have.

I'll close this issue for now. If somebody is willing to do the research, please re-open *and* attach a patch.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.