Re: Hugs plugin, Haskell Browser
2. When I hear "translate to HTML" I imagine that underlined words which can be clicked to see, say, definition of function. Sadly, most htmlizers are focused on highlighting rather than navigation.
Why generate HTML pages if noone reads them?-) Take this obscure location, for instance: http://www.haskell.org/libraries/#docu admittedly, Jan Skibinski's Haskell module browser is currently only available via archives, but it wasn't HTML-based anyway, and the other two links still work. Here's another example of text colouring that can be clicked on (few people do, so it has become quite silent on the mailing list, try the first months for more action..): http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskelldoc Hth, Claus
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 07:29:13PM +0000, C.Reinke wrote:
2. When I hear "translate to HTML" I imagine that underlined words which can be clicked to see, say, definition of function. Sadly, most htmlizers are focused on highlighting rather than navigation.
Why generate HTML pages if noone reads them?-)
I said "most"! :) (To be honest, I thought about "all") Well, I mostly referred at multi-lingual html grnerators which come with that unix editors. There are alot of xref tools for every given language, but that zoo is quite hard to maintain, if you have to live with, say, 4 languages. Max.
function. Sadly, most htmlizers are focused on highlighting rather than navigation. .. I said "most"! :) (To be honest, I thought about "all")
just wanted to point out that there have been several hyperlinking HTML documentation generators for Haskell (in fact, from memory I'm quite sure there have been more than the two listed:-).
Well, I mostly referred at multi-lingual html grnerators which come with that unix editors. There are alot of xref tools for every given language, but that zoo is quite hard to maintain, if you have to live with, say, 4 languages.
Now that is an entirely different problem. As you've mentioned, tags-generators and "syntax" definitions exist for many language/ editor-combinations, so one could indeed imagine having to write only one extra tool per editor. Another option would be literate programming tools with hyperref support. However, much of the discussion surrounding documentation tools has been on what standard formats programmers would have to adopt so that a tool would be able to extract comments and associate them with the correct declarations. Would you hope programmers of different languages/paradigms to agree on such an issue if they cannot even agree on an editor/a language?-) On an unrelated issue, though within the subject: Haskellers using Vim might want to take a sneak preview of a little hack in which I'm using Hugs as a kind of Vim plugin (hopelessly inefficient in theory, but no problem in practice with last year's machines:). a Vim compiler plugin for Hugs (drop in one of Vim's compiler/ directories) http://www.cs.ukc.ac.uk/people/staff/cr3/tmp/hugs.vim its help file (drop in one of Vim's doc/ directories, and regenerate helptags in that directory; then type :help hugs.vim) http://www.cs.ukc.ac.uk/people/staff/cr3/tmp/hugs.txt (pre-release testers and feedback welcome:-) Cheers, Claus -- Research Opportunity: Refactoring Functional Programs (UKC) Closing date: Friday 22 March 2002 !! http://www.cs.ukc.ac.uk/vacancies_dir/r02-24.html
participants (3)
-
C.Reinke -
Claus Reinke -
Max Kirillov