Changes between Version 1 and Version 3 of Ticket #94

Show
Ignore:
Timestamp:
03/01/09 13:08:06 (5 years ago)
Author:
waern
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #94 – description

    v1 v3  
    1010}}} 
    1111 
    12 Since we don't support Haddock comments on individual arguments of constructors, this just fails with a parse error. Perhaps we should just give a warning in case like this, where a Haddock comment is encountered at an unexpected place. 
     12Since we don't support Haddock comments on individual arguments of constructors, this just fails with a parse error. Perhaps we should give a warning message instead. In general, it would be good if we give a warning message instead of a parse error whenever a Haddock comment is encountered where it is not expected. 
    1313 
    14 I think this is hard to implement, given the way things currently work. Haddock comments are just ordinary tokens that are fed to the parser, and we clearly don't want put them all over the grammar. If we should move to a design where Haddock comments are not in the grammar, but are collected elsewhere, implement this ticket would be a lot easier. 
     14I think implementing this is hard, given the way things currently work. Haddock comments are just ordinary tokens that are fed to the parser in GHC, and we clearly don't want put them all over the grammar. If we should move to a design where Haddock comments are not in the grammar, but are collected elsewhere, implementing this ticket would be easier.