I never thought about that. I've been using Setup.hs with "#!/usr/bin/env runhaskell" and never had any problems. I guess the only thing that would be gained by using Setup.lhs is the ability to compile the setup program. Is that something that's commonly done? Richard G. Johannes Waldmann wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Does this mean that literate source files should be discouraged? They seem to be fairly common, especially in conjunction with Cabal (i.e., Setup.lhs).
I think the reason for having Setup.lhs instead of Setup.hs is that you can put #!/usr/local/bin/runhaskell in their first line. Then chmod +x Setup.lhs and you can do ./Setup.lhs configure etc. So, this has nothing to do with literate programming.
Best regards, J.W.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIVfxBDqiTJ5Q4dm8RAtZkAJ4r0qWQiUmQvsPhJMAFiccMvmJTQgCcCSH9 Y3Wph09j9/j2yJ2bsYYMXfQ= =NIax -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----