{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiddcfo5cqwkkgonximn34kw2ppzjnmycyimefhn3ugg5z6rjrsomq",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pi6woz4d47bkuws673w2il2r/app.bsky.feed.post/3mglo5y7cdo62"
  },
  "path": "/t/announcing-scrod-like-haddock-but-faster/13761#post_19",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-09T00:45:56.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.haskell.org",
  "tags": [
    "Reddit - The heart of the internet"
  ],
  "textContent": "Vlix:\n\n> Haddock doesn’t do that, does it?\n\nNope! As far as I know, Haddock does not retain function arguments at all.\n\nVlix:\n\n> Can you annotate arguments?\n\nI don’t think so. You can document their types, of course. I think any documentation connected to the binding itself is simply dropped by GHC.\n\nVlix:\n\n> Even if a completely different parser has to be created.\n\nThis line of thinking reminds me of Kmett’s Coda and monoidal parsing: Reddit - The heart of the internet\n\nAmbrose:\n\n> I just wrote something for what graphex needs\n\nI did consider going down this route for Scrod. However I wanted to leverage GHC (and Haddock) as much as possible to avoid another `haskell-src-exts` situation where Scrod handles things differently than GHC and I’m constantly trying to fix the problems.",
  "title": "Announcing Scrod, like Haddock but faster"
}