RE: Super Haddock (was Re: Literate Programming)

Ketil Z. Malde writes:

"Simon Marlow" 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