On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 16:08 +0000, Alistair Bayley wrote:
Hello,
I've not had any feedback on this. Is there some additional work for me to do to make the patches more acceptable for the cabal codebase?
I finally go round to looking at this. I'm fairly happy with it code wise. I've done a bit of refactoring to improve handling of error messages and to add back handling of line pragmas. I've kept the state machine the same. Thanks for the test suite, that was particularly handy as I was making some changes. One bit I'm less sure about is the handling of paragraphs in comments. Currently the code transforms: blah blah blah blah into -- blah blah -- blah blah but it transforms blah blah blah blah into -- blah blah -- -- blah blah spot the difference? Yeah, just white space. The completely blank line separates the paragraphs into two comments which haddock will treat differently from a single comment. It comes from this code: -- special case here: a truly empty line will terminate -- a comment section (and send us into the "blank" state) comment (Blank "" :ls) = Blank "" : blank ls -- but a line containing whitespace will be treated as a -- comment (prefixed with "-- "), unless it is followed by -- a program line, in which case it is really blank. comment (Blank l:ls@(BirdTrack _:_)) = Blank l : blank ls comment (Blank l:ls) = Comment l : comment ls Perhaps we should just always make the trailing space part of a comment. Obviously we'd have to handle space before some bird-track line without complaining that it's a comment next to code. That might need one more state. I've attached my changes. I still think we need some larger scale test to make sure this is ok. Perhaps there's some way of comparing the output with ghc's unlit. We'd need to blank out "--" lines in both files and probably more to get them to compare equal. Then we could test that on all the .lhs files we can lay our hands on (ghc, hackage etc). Duncan