haskell - How are the Haddock module fields Portability, Stability and Maintainer used? -



haskell - How are the Haddock module fields Portability, Stability and Maintainer used? -

in lots of haddock-generated module documentation (e.g. prelude), little box in top-right can seen, containing portability, stability , maintainer information:

from looking @ source code such modules , experimentation, confirmed info generated lines next in module description:

-- maintainer : libraries@haskell.org -- stability : stable -- portability : portable

there several unusual things this:

the fields only seem work in order — fields set out of order treat part of module description itself. despite fact order in source file opposite of order in generated documentation!

i have been unable find official documentation of these fields. there cabal bundle property named stability, illustration values of match values i've seen in equivalent haddock fields, beyond that, i've found nothing.

so: how these fields intended used, , documented anywhere?

in particular, i'd know:

the total list of commonly-used values portability , stability. this haskellwiki page has list, i'd know list originated from.

the criteria deciding whether module portable or non-portable. in particular, bundle answers these questions for, acme-strfry, ffi binding strfry, function available in glibc. bundle non-portable, because works on glibc systems, or portable, because not utilize haskell language extensions? mutual usage seems imply latter.

why specific order of fields required in source file, , why it's opposite of ordering in generated documentation.

oh, thought fields cabal bundle description. don't seem documented @ on haddock's docs. i've found this, doesn't reply question but:

http://trac.haskell.org/haddock/ticket/71

so if it's freeform anyway, why not write "non-portable (depends on glibc)"? i've seen "portable (depends on ghc)", odd. wonder happens modules non-portable due non-haskell98 extension foo, after foo added haskell 2010.

note cabal documenation link says stability freeform. of course, if haddock or cabal define acceptable values, it'd still maintainer subjectively select one.

about specific order, should inquire @ haddock mailing list, or check source , file bug.

ps: strfry invaluable contribution haskell community, should pure , portable, don't think?

haskell haddock

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

delphi - blogger via idHTTP : error 400 bad request -

c++ - compiler errors when initializing EXPECT_CALL with function which has program_options::variables_map as parameter -

How do I check if an insert was successful with MySQLdb in Python? -