[darcs-users] Darcs utterly melts my brain: why PatchInfoAnd?

David Roundy droundy at darcs.net
Wed Oct 1 14:48:49 UTC 2008

On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 10:28:02AM +0200, Florent Becker wrote:
> Florent Becker <florent.becker at ens-lyon.org> writes:
> > Le 30 sept. 08 à 23:30, Eric Kow a écrit :
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 22:27:24 +0100, Eric Kow wrote:
> >>> Fast-tracking.
> >>
> >> On second thought, you have some haddock errors (nothing which
> >> prevents
> >> haddocking).  Would you like to submit a cleaned-up version?
> >>
> >> I'm still willing to just go ahead and apply it, on the grounds that
> >> somebody else can clean up afterwards.
> >>
> > Here is an updated version, which only complains that it cannot find
> > the documentation for the base library, which i don't have on my
> > system. What is the error you're seeing?
> >
> I found out what was happening: the C(x y) macro was messing with
> haddock strings. Here is a corrected version.
> This yields a question: do we want the C(x y) to appear in the
> api-doc. They don't appear in the automatically-generated parts of the
> html, but they do appear in the code, so there has to be a discrepancy
> somewhere.

The C(x y) is an important part of the type signature in any of the
code that has been converted to actually use type witnesses, as it
documents how the patches relate to one another.  So if the haddock
documentation is to be useful, this should be included.


More information about the darcs-users mailing list