Cale Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 21/10/2007, Jon Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, they (or at least links to them) typically are that bad!
Mind you, as far as fragment identification is concerned, so
are a lot of html pages. But even if the links do have
fragment ids, pdfs
On 10/26/07, John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heh, the plethora of pdf papers on Haskell is part of what originally
brought me to respect it. Something about that metafont painted cmr
just makes me giddy as a grad student. A beautifully rendered type
inference table is a masterful work of
Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 10/26/07, John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heh, the plethora of pdf papers on Haskell is part of what originally
brought me to respect it. Something about that metafont painted cmr
just makes me giddy as a grad student. A beautifully rendered
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 21:42 +, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
Hugh Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 10/26/07, John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heh, the plethora of pdf papers on Haskell is part of what originally
brought me to respect it. Something about that metafont painted cmr
On 21/10/2007, Jon Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, they (or at least links to them) typically are that bad!
Mind you, as far as fragment identification is concerned, so
are a lot of html pages. But even if the links do have
fragment ids, pdfs still impose a significant overhead: I
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 10:01:37AM +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
That sort of misses my point. Given the length of time I've
been involved with it, I hardly need encouragement to use
Haskell, but if even I find getting to the documentation
off-putting, having to know a trick to do it isn't
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Oct 21, 2007, at 6:29 , Jon Fairbairn wrote:
No, they (or at least links to them) typically are that bad!
Mind you, as far as fragment identification is concerned, so
are a lot of html pages. But even if the links do have
fragment ids,
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
A hyperlink of the form a
href=http://.../long-research-paper.html#interesting-paragraph;
interesting bit/a is far more useful than one of the form
a href=http://.../long-research-paper.pdf;look for
section 49.7.3/a. It may not seem significant, but when
one is attempting
Peter Hercek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
A hyperlink of the form a
href=http://.../long-research-paper.html#interesting-paragraph;
interesting bit/a is far more useful than one of the form
a href=http://.../long-research-paper.pdf;look for
section 49.7.3/a. It may not
Yes, htmls are better than pdfs (more lightweight, easier to
work with if exact page layout is not important). I just wanted
to point out that it is possible to link into some particular
place of a pdf document. So the linking availability should
not be the argument by itself. I would prefer
On Oct 21, 2007, at 6:29 , Jon Fairbairn wrote:
No, they (or at least links to them) typically are that bad!
Mind you, as far as fragment identification is concerned, so
are a lot of html pages. But even if the links do have
fragment ids, pdfs still impose a significant overhead: I
don't want
Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I realise belatedly that my message might have sounded
dismissive. My apologies; it wasn't intended to be. Good
ideas are just that: good. Reinventing them is a sign of
good taste.
As to documenting GHC, we try to do that by writing papers.
12 matches
Mail list logo
