On 2007 Mar 3, at 7:43 AM, Ross Paterson indited:
but oddly doesn't seem to have been clarified in the report. We should definitely make sure that Haskell' does so!
Or perhaps we should get rid of \begin{code} and \end{code}, before someone proposes <code> and </code>.
UGH. Since the "text" that is not inside of the \begin{code} and \end {code} is relatively unconstrained, would be it cool, or egregious, to have a comment which would permit a particular file to designate its own literacy boundaries? Bird beaks allow for simple markup, and the TeX commands all for trivial integration with (La)TeX, so would it really be all that demeaning to allow for other alternatives even if you wouldn't choose them yourself? Metaprogramming to specify this would be overkill, but constant strings would get you 95% of the way to utter generality. Anyways, thought I'd toss out a third alternative to "no change or remove TeX". --Doug