Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:

Wasn't there talk at one stage of integrating pandoc into haddock?

I wouldn't mind Haddock depending on Pandoc, at least optionally (-fmarkdown-comments). Taking this to its conclusion you could easily have syntax-highlighted code examples in Haddock documentations and allow alternative output formats. Greets, Ertugrul -- nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife >>= sex) http://ertes.de/

On 21 November 2011 03:19, David Fox wrote:

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:

...

Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:

...

Wasn't there talk at one stage of integrating pandoc into haddock?

I wouldn't mind Haddock depending on Pandoc, at least optionally (-fmarkdown-comments).  Taking this to its conclusion you could easily have syntax-highlighted code examples in Haddock documentations and allow alternative output formats.

I'm not sure the pandoc license (GPL) is compatible with the GHC license.

Do you mean because GHC ships with a Haddock binary? -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic Ivan.Miljenovic@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:

On 21 November 2011 03:19, David Fox wrote:

...

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:

...

Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:

...

Wasn't there talk at one stage of integrating pandoc into haddock?

I wouldn't mind Haddock depending on Pandoc, at least optionally (-fmarkdown-comments).  Taking this to its conclusion you could easily have syntax-highlighted code examples in Haddock documentations and allow alternative output formats.

I'm not sure the pandoc license (GPL) is compatible with the GHC license.

Do you mean because GHC ships with a Haddock binary?

Haddock carries the same license as GHC.

On 21 November 2011 17:34, Brandon Allbery wrote:

...

Haddock carries the same license as GHC.

More to the point, Haddock uses ghc internals these days; it's not just a matter of bundling, and the licenses *must* be compatible.

No. If the haddock library any program that links against that library (e.g., the haddock program) effectively becomes GPL licensed (roughly speaking). However, ghc and none of the core libraries link against haddock, so that's not a problem. You could run into issues if you wanted to write a closed-source program that links against the haddock library. I generally don't like GPL-licensed libraries for that reason, but in this case I think it would be fine. (Of course, the issue is that many tools start out as programs and then turn into libraries -- pandoc is a good example. At that point GPL becomes an issue again.) -- Push the envelope. Watch it bend.

On 18 November 2011 19:06, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:

Maybe have a switch that enables markdown and disables markup-related features of haddock (everything except linking to identifiers/modules, I believe), so that we don't affect existing docs. Then make it possible to pass this flag through cabal.

As in have an opt-in Cabal field? -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic Ivan.Miljenovic@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com