Kernel documentation

Posted Nov 6, 2015 21:39 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
In reply to: Kernel documentation by nybble41
Parent article: Kernel documentation

That may be true but I think you'd still get pushback if it were a single Haskell executable.

Incorporating Haskell into the Linux build system is an uphill push. Not because anyone dislikes Haskell, just because the toolchain is managed by a small group of people with a finite capability (and desire) to learn new technologies. Next someone wants to merge some Go code, and someone else some Scala...

Kernel documentation

Posted Nov 6, 2015 23:18 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (1 responses)

This would be for the documentation, not the main build step (like Perl is (was?)). And the documentation is readable in its source form (unlike raw HTML or docbook).

Kernel documentation

Posted Nov 12, 2015 2:58 UTC (Thu) by tbird20d (subscriber, #1901) [Link]

It would be nice to do some kind of "checkdoc" functionality as part of pre-testing patches prior to their acceptance into mainline. Linus mentioned that he'd like to see some documentation moved from Documentation into the source files (or at least some attempt to capture information that is now only available in source comments - besides the structure and function docs. In any event, it would be nice to keep documentation operations lightweight and avoid too many build system dependencies. I'd vote against a dependency on Haskell (although I kind of like pandoc).

Kernel documentation

Posted Nov 13, 2015 20:50 UTC (Fri) by robbe (guest, #16131) [Link]

Why would Linux (documentation) maintainers start hacking on pandoc? It's just a build tool. Neither are most Linux hackers banging on GCC code, even though it is written in C.

Now, device drivers written in Haskell, that would mean serious business.