Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Documentation: s/Guy/Dev #48

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: ghc-8.8
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

goldfirere
Copy link
Contributor

While reading the Haddock docs recently, I realized that there is no need for the gendered "Guy" when the neutral "Dev" would do.

Kleidukos and others added 9 commits March 19, 2020 12:38
Note: I noticed some overlap with #1112 from @wygulmage and #1081 from
@parsonsmatt after creating these proposed changes - mea culpa for not
looking at the open PRs sooner.
The current formatting of the missing link destination does not really
help user to understand the reasons of the missing link.

To address this, I've changed the formatting in two ways:

- the missing link symbol name is now fully qualified. This way you
immediately know which haskell module cannot be linked. It is then easier
to understand why this module does not have documentation (hidden module
or broken documentation).
- one line per missing link, that's more readable now that symbol name
can be longer due to qualification.

For example, before haddock was listing missing symbol such as:

```
could not find link destinations for:
  Word8 Word16 mapMaybe
```

Now it is listed as:

```
could not find link destinations for:
  - Data.Word.Word8
  - Data.Word.Word16
  - Data.Maybe.mapMaybe
```
This argument can be used multiples time. A missing link to a symbol
listed by `--ignore-link-symbol` won't trigger "missing link" warning.
This is an easy way to remove a reference to a gendered noun.
@goldfirere
Copy link
Contributor Author

:( I have no idea what those other commits are. And I don't know which branch this should be against. But I'm sure you get the idea.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants