Ketil Z. Malde writes:
>
> "Simon Marlow" <simonmar(a)microsoft.com> writes:
>
> > Somebody else¹ wrote:
>
> >> This seems like a good way of transitioning from .lhs to
> >> haddock'd .hs. In the long run, I think we (meaning Simon :-)
> >> should to extend haddock to take the place of the .lhs style of
> >> documenting code.
>
> > That's an interesting idea. It's not at all what Haddock
> was intended
> > for, but that's not to say it couldn't be done!
>
> I'm not sure I would like this. I guess I'm one of (the apparently
> very few?) who are using LaTeX lhs style (using \begin/\end{code}).
> Would a Haddock replacement give me the same kind of functionality in
> producing a nice printable copy? I definitely have grown attached to
> having math, footnotes, page headings, sections, and so on.
Haddock isn't (intended to be) a literate programming system, so I don't imagine it will replace full LaTeX literate source any time
soon. The suggestion is just that it could produce nicely-formatted source code complete with lightly marked-up comments - which I
think is a fine idea, and not too difficult to implement using the existing framework.
> ¹) As Exchange doesn't leave useful thread information, I'm not quite
> sure who. Simon and others, if you must use Exchange, could you take
> care to leave an attribution, prefereably including the message-id?
I can get proper In-Reply-To headers by avoiding Exchange altogether, but it requires me to select an option each time I send a
message, so I often forget (sorry!). I've reported it as a bug in Exchange, but it might be a generation or two before it gets
fixed.
Cheers,
Simon
