Re: patch applied (cabal): Fudge comment indentation in unliting to work with haddock

On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 09:01:05PM +0000, Alistair Bayley wrote:

On 04/02/2008, Ian Lynagh wrote:

...

On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 08:28:35PM -0800, Duncan Coutts wrote:

...

Sat Feb 2 20:23:08 PST 2008 Duncan Coutts * Fudge comment indentation in unliting to work with haddock The rule is, if we see any bird track style code then we will indent all comments by two spaces so that it should line up with the code. Otherwise we use no indentation so that it'll work with latex style literate files. This makes it work for takusen (once you change the '.' lines to be blank).

I haven't been following exactly what's been going on with this, but this sounds very wrong to me. Is this problem caused by using invisible spaces for comment continuation, or did using '.' have the same problem?

The problem is that Haddock expects comments to be indented to the same level as the code.

Ah, I see. A more-correct thing to do might be to indent to the same depth as the next token? That would have the additional advantage of being able to document nested functions.

code. So now we indent comments by two spaces instead. Obviously won't work for code that's indented with ">" rather than "> ", so you can't Haddock comment such code

Not with literate comments, but you can if you use Haskell comments on birdtrack lines, presumably. In fact, I hadn't appreciated that non-Haskell comments would end up being picked up by haddock. Thanks Ian