Duncan Coutts
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 14:37 +0000, Alistair Bayley wrote:
As for a wider discussion, I'm all for it, but I believe the impact of this change on existing code should be negligible (pending further testing, of course), so I'm not sure if we're going to get much interest. I'm trying to solve the problem in a way that's useful for me now, and, I hope, in a way that's useful for others. I get the impression that I'm a pretty small minority in trying to generate Haddock docs from .lhs source.
You are, but that's only because it doesn't currently work :-).
I would certainly have written my pedantic html library using literate style if Haddock had worked for it without pain.
In particular I'd like to know how well it works for Jon Fairbairn who has .lhs code that uses haddock markup and he uses a little pre-processor to convert it.
(I didn't want to have to include that preprocessor with the library, so used illiterate Haskell instead). While I have a fair bit of literate Haskell, hardly any of it uses Haddock, so I don't think I can supply a useful amount of data here as it would take me so little time to convert it to whatever form you end up with. Thanks for asking, though. -- Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk