HackageDB messes up {-# OPTIONS_HADDOCK hide #-} #759

Closed
bos opened this Issue May 24, 2012 · 6 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
Contributor

bos commented May 24, 2012

(Imported from Trac #769, reported by @blamario on 2010-11-26)

Have a look at the SCC 0.6 package page (http://hackage.haskell.org/package/scc) and then try to see, say, its XML module API (http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/scc/0.6/doc/html/Control-Concurrent-SCC-XML.html).

The reason for the 404 message that this module has a {-# OPTIONS_HADDOCK hide #-} pragma. When I tried Haddock locally, the effect was that the module became invisible, which was my intention. Making the module name visible but its documentation missing was not.

Contributor

bos commented May 24, 2012

(Imported comment by ross on 2010-11-26)

That's true, but why do you want to expose a module and hide its documentation?

Contributor

bos commented May 24, 2012

(Imported comment by @blamario on 2010-11-26)

It seemed like a reasonable compromise between simplicity and openness. I don't mind anybody importing the hidden modules, I just don't want them to clutter the interface because their content is already re-exported through the visible modules.
Contributor

bos commented May 24, 2012

(Imported comment by ross on 2010-11-26)

In that case, it seems you've nothing to lose from moving the modules you want to hide from exposed-modules to other-modules.

The package page sets out to present the info in the .cabal file, so the Modules section should list all the modules in exposed-modules. It could check the existence of each file individually in deciding whether to make the module name a link or just plain, but I think its simpler for people to use exposed-modules/other-modules than OPTIONS_HADDOCK hide.

Contributor

bos commented May 24, 2012

(Imported comment by @blamario on 2010-11-26)

Okay, I'll modify my .cabal file if that is the recommended approach. Do we agree that the current handling of OPTIONS_HADDOCK hide is a bug, though?

Contributor

bos commented May 24, 2012

(Imported comment by ross on 2010-11-26)

I think the module should be shown if listed in exposed-modules, but showing it as a link if the file is absent is a bug. I think it's a minor one, though, as other-modules is almost always more appropriate.

Member

ttuegel commented Feb 27, 2015

This isn't a Cabal issue.

ttuegel closed this Feb 27, 2015

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment