Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 14:37 +0000, Alistair Bayley wrote: >> As for a wider discussion, I'm all for it, but I believe the impact of >> this change on existing code should be negligible (pending further >> testing, of course), so I'm not sure if we're going to get much >> interest. I'm trying to solve the problem in a way that's useful for >> me now, and, I hope, in a way that's useful for others. I get the >> impression that I'm a pretty small minority in trying to generate >> Haddock docs from .lhs source. > > You are, but that's only because it doesn't currently work :-).
I would certainly have written my pedantic html library using literate style if Haddock had worked for it without pain. > In particular I'd like to know how well it works for Jon Fairbairn who > has .lhs code that uses haddock markup and he uses a little > pre-processor to convert it. (I didn't want to have to include that preprocessor with the library, so used illiterate Haskell instead). While I have a fair bit of literate Haskell, hardly any of it uses Haddock, so I don't think I can supply a useful amount of data here as it would take me so little time to convert it to whatever form you end up with. Thanks for asking, though. -- Jón Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
