On Wednesday 23 April 2003 10:41 am, Steffen Mazanek wrote:
Hello.
Simon Marlow wrote:
I don't think that's entirely fair. Most of the libraries that come with GHC (and Hugs, and soon Nhc) are documented. See for example
As far as I know (please correct me, if I err) one shortcoming of Haddock is its restriction to .hs-files.
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. I use haddock to document interfaces for modules and it works wonderfully for that (and it would be even better if I could use haddock comments inside records and in between constructor arguments, hint, hint). But I find myself using it in comments within code (especially within local functions) too. Perhaps a haddock that had two modes (one for interfaces, one for implementation) would work. The interface mode would work as it does now. The implementation mode would produce a .html version of the entire module, using haddock comments to mark it up. Simon: how much work would this be? A -- 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