On 20 Nov 2011, at 22:20, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
On 21 November 2011 03:19, David Fox dds...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
Wasn't there talk at one stage of integrating
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 November 2011 03:19, David Fox dds...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
Wasn't there
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:28, David Fox dds...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 November 2011 03:19, David Fox dds...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure the pandoc license (GPL) is compatible with the GHC
license.
On 21 November 2011 17:34, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com wrote:
Haddock carries the same license as GHC.
More to the point, Haddock uses ghc internals these days; it's not just a
matter of bundling, and the licenses *must* be compatible.
No. If the haddock library any program that
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
Wasn't there talk at one stage of integrating pandoc into haddock?
I wouldn't mind Haddock depending on Pandoc, at least optionally
(-fmarkdown-comments). Taking
On 21 November 2011 03:19, David Fox dds...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Ertugrul Soeylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
Wasn't there talk at one stage of integrating pandoc into haddock?
I wouldn't mind Haddock depending on
* Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com [2011-11-17 21:09:15-0800]
Hi all,
I spent some time today documenting a library and the experience left me
wanting a better markup language. In particular, Haddock lacks:
* markup for bold text: bold text works better than italics for emphasis
on
On 18 November 2011 19:06, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
Maybe have a switch that enables markdown and disables markup-related
features of haddock (everything except linking to identifiers/modules, I
believe), so that we don't affect existing docs. Then make it possible
to pass this
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
Wasn't there talk at one stage of integrating pandoc into haddock?
I wouldn't mind Haddock depending on Pandoc, at least optionally
(-fmarkdown-comments). Taking this to its conclusion you could easily
have syntax-highlighted code examples
On 18/11/11 09:18, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
On 18 November 2011 19:06, Roman Cheplyakar...@ro-che.info wrote:
Maybe have a switch that enables markdown and disables markup-related
features of haddock (everything except linking to identifiers/modules, I
believe), so that we don't affect
Hi all,
I spent some time today documenting a library and the experience left me
wanting a better markup language. In particular, Haddock lacks:
* markup for bold text: bold text works better than italics for emphasis
on computer monitors.
* hyperlinks with anchor texts: having the actual URL
On 18 November 2011 16:09, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I spent some time today documenting a library and the experience left me
wanting a better markup language. In particular, Haddock lacks:
* markup for bold text: bold text works better than italics for emphasis on
12 matches
Mail list logo
