I'd like to give it a try. I guess the repo is http://darcs.haskell.org/SoC/ghc.haddock/. Glancing around, see a version of ghc, and I don't know how to build haddock. Is ghc.haddock a new flag to a forked version of ghc?
Other questions: is ghc.haddock known to build & run on Windows? Is the plan to merge it into the main ghc sources, and if so, when?
I'd love to hear from others using ghc.haddock.
Thanks, - Conal
Hi Conal, The changes in ghc.haddock was merged to GHC last year after my SoC project was finished. This repository should not be used anymore. What you need is a quite recent GHC 6.7, probably from July or later. Then you should get Haddock 2.0 aka haddock.ghc from this darcs repository: http://darcs.haskell.org/SoC/haddock.ghc/. The package can be built using Cabal and GHC 6.7. I haven't tested it with Windows - please let me know if you have any problems. Thanks for taking interest! /David
Hi David. Thanks for the reply. I'm pretty confused. I understand your first paragraph as saying *not* to use that repo, and the second as saying to use it. Is the new haddock included in GHC 6.7 or is it still an app that works separately from GHC? If the latter, where is the app's repo? Thanks, - Conal On 8/10/07, David Waern <davve@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote:
I'd like to give it a try. I guess the repo is http://darcs.haskell.org/SoC/ghc.haddock/. Glancing around, see a version of ghc, and I don't know how to build haddock. Is ghc.haddock a new flag to a forked version of ghc?
Other questions: is ghc.haddock known to build & run on Windows? Is the plan to merge it into the main ghc sources, and if so, when?
I'd love to hear from others using ghc.haddock.
Thanks, - Conal
Hi Conal,
The changes in ghc.haddock was merged to GHC last year after my SoC project was finished. This repository should not be used anymore. What you need is a quite recent GHC 6.7, probably from July or later.
Then you should get Haddock 2.0 aka haddock.ghc from this darcs repository: http://darcs.haskell.org/SoC/haddock.ghc/. The package can be built using Cabal and GHC 6.7. I haven't tested it with Windows - please let me know if you have any problems.
Thanks for taking interest!
/David
Conal Elliott wrote:
Hi David. Thanks for the reply.
I'm pretty confused. I understand your first paragraph as saying *not* to use that repo, and the second as saying to use it. Is the new haddock included in GHC 6.7 or is it still an app that works separately from GHC? If the latter, where is the app's repo?
haddock.ghc and ghc.haddock are different. Haddock.ghc needs a GHC with the patches from ghc.haddock. The latest GHC 6.7 has ghc.haddock patches. Haddock.ghc is the new haddock, which requires those GHC capabilities. So you need GHC 6.7 *and* haddock.ghc. Does that clear up the rather confusing naming scheme? Isaac
All clear now. :) Much appreciated, Isaac! - Conal On 8/14/07, Isaac Dupree <isaacdupree@charter.net> wrote:
Conal Elliott wrote:
Hi David. Thanks for the reply.
I'm pretty confused. I understand your first paragraph as saying *not* to use that repo, and the second as saying to use it. Is the new haddock included in GHC 6.7 or is it still an app that works separately from GHC? If the latter, where is the app's repo?
haddock.ghc and ghc.haddock are different. Haddock.ghc needs a GHC with the patches from ghc.haddock. The latest GHC 6.7 has ghc.haddock patches. Haddock.ghc is the new haddock, which requires those GHC capabilities. So you need GHC 6.7 *and* haddock.ghc. Does that clear up the rather confusing naming scheme?
Isaac _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
Isaac Dupree wrote:
haddock.ghc and ghc.haddock are different. Haddock.ghc needs a GHC with the patches from ghc.haddock. The latest GHC 6.7 has ghc.haddock patches. Haddock.ghc is the new haddock, which requires those GHC capabilities. So you need GHC 6.7 *and* haddock.ghc. Does that clear up the rather confusing naming scheme?
So presumably ghc.haddock provides some new API that haddock.ghc uses to get parse information? -- Ashley Yakeley
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 11:45:43PM -0700, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
Isaac Dupree wrote:
haddock.ghc and ghc.haddock are different. Haddock.ghc needs a GHC with the patches from ghc.haddock. The latest GHC 6.7 has ghc.haddock patches. Haddock.ghc is the new haddock, which requires those GHC capabilities. So you need GHC 6.7 *and* haddock.ghc. Does that clear up the rather confusing naming scheme?
So presumably ghc.haddock provides some new API that haddock.ghc uses to get parse information?
Yup, modern GHC can parse Haddock comments and return them in the API. Disgustingly non-compositional, but it gets the job done, and is much better than just copying code... Stefan
participants (5)
-
Ashley Yakeley -
Conal Elliott -
David Waern -
Isaac Dupree -
Stefan O'Rear