[ Simon moved the thread to cafe, but I note there is still some activity in the main list, hence the crosspost. ] On Friday 25 April 2003 02:34 am, Simon Marlow wrote:

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.

I just want to back Simon up here. My original post was intended to motivate a lightweight alternative to LaTeX lhs style, _not_ a replacement. I'm delighted that there are people that use literate Haskell. I don't: it's too unwieldy for my purposes. When documenting code for a small team of developers, when that code is fluid, and must be maintained, having professional, very attractive, browsable source code documentation is a wonderful thing. When you can produce that documentation with such minimal mark-up, it's going to get used. Cheers, Andy -- Andy Moran Ph. (503) 526 3472 Galois Connections Inc. Fax. (503) 350 0833 3875 SW Hall Blvd. http://www.galois.com Beaverton, OR 97005 moran@galois.com