On Friday 25 April 2003 09:09, Ketil Z. Malde 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.
That makes two of us. I've been doing almost all my haskell work using lhs files + LaTeX, and I'd really miss it if was removed someday. Haddock documentation seems very nice but it serves a diferent purpose. J.A.