Haddock version during build

[Isaac Dupree]

Simon Marlow wrote:
> David Waern wrote:
> 
>>> Another thing to think about is these bugs:
>>>    http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1269
>>>    http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/2337
>>> about giving docs for things reexported from another package. One way to
>>> fix this would be for GHC to put the doc info in the .hi file (or
>>> another auxiliary file); I think GHC can already parse the info?
>>
>> Yes, although putting the doc info in the .haddock file would also work.
> 
> Putting it in the .haddock file seems right to me, given that we want to 
> move as much knowledge of Haddock documentation from GHC into Haddock as 
> possible.   The problem with putting the documentation in the .hi would 
> be that it needs to be renamed, and in order to do that GHC would have 
> to understand the markup.  It currently does understand the markup, but 
> we wanted to move that knowledge out of GHC and into Haddock.
> 
> However this does mean that we need to run haddock at library build 
> time, and can't leave it until later as Ian suggests.

is there a reason not to put the .hs (rather than a .haddock) with the 
.hi, so it can be processed later with haddock? (some sort of inefficiency?)

-Isaac