8 ms·
Why you never document your code? You didn't document your Clojure libs and now you're continuing the trend with Haskell. If you're going to make libs, please p
by MrRoger 12y ago
Why you never document your code? You didn't document your Clojure libs and now you're continuing the trend with Haskell. If you're going to make libs, please provide the adequate documentation with examples of usage in the code. I'm not gonna keep going back to the README. I'm going to use Hoogle and Hackage. All those comments in the README could be looking all pretty on Hackage right now.
- carterschonwald 12y agohuh, Chris definitely should add some comments to his code. I'll tease him about it for the next week!
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- coolsunglasses 12y agoIs there a particular Clojure library that you need more documentation for? I'll transfer the README docs over to Haddock/lhs when I do the next non-trivial release.
- the1 12y agomeh, types give you enough documentation. once you play around with examples on README, reading type annotations (that are actually written manually as a form of documentation) of functions in https://github.com/bitemyapp/bloodhound/blob/master/Database/Bloodhound/Client.hs https://github.com/bitemyapp/bloodhound/blob/master/Database... make sense. examples could be moved over into modules.. but I much much prefer to have examples in one place that could be read like a gentle introduction and walkthrough of the library. Said that, additional module and function documentation could be useful, too. But not at all if the library maintainer just fills stuff in to generate fat haddock. Again, type annotation says much. And, you're welcome to contribute documentation to the library.
- swuecho 12y agothat is frustrated me when entering functional language world. rarely good document compared to other language. In Perl, many modules will have their own tutorial