Preview of XHTML, CSS style-able Haddock output

Johan Tibell johan.tibell at
Tue Jul 20 11:47:09 EDT 2010

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Thomas Schilling
<nominolo at>wrote:

> Hi all,
> I was wondering whether really want to keep the table in the argument list.
> On the one hand it allows a very compact and neat layout when all the
> argument types are short.  However, when the argument names get longer
> it just looks weird.  E.g., if one argument is a function, the
> description column gets really small.  Ideally I'd like something like
> this:
>    :: ShortArg   Description right next to it
>    -> (ALongArg -> Because -> ItIsA -> Function)
>                       Description on separate line, but lining up
> with the other descriptions.
> As an approximation of this, I personally wouldn't mind if we use
> separate lines for everything.  It makes the documentation a little
> bit longer, but overall I believe it would be better than the
> table-based approach.
> I attached a small proof-of-concept.
> What do you think?

I think I like it. Google does something similar in its API docs. For
examples, see:

Changing from tables would mean that we intend to launch the improved
haddock with a new stylesheet as the old style would be hard to emulate
without using tables.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Haddock mailing list