On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 09:01:05PM +0000, Alistair Bayley wrote: > On 04/02/2008, Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 08:28:35PM -0800, Duncan Coutts wrote: > > > Sat Feb 2 20:23:08 PST 2008 Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > * Fudge comment indentation in unliting to work with haddock > > > The rule is, if we see any bird track style code then we will indent all > > > comments by two spaces so that it should line up with the code. > > > Otherwise > > > we use no indentation so that it'll work with latex style literate > > > files. > > > This makes it work for takusen (once you change the '.' lines to be > > > blank). > > > > I haven't been following exactly what's been going on with this, but > > this sounds very wrong to me. Is this problem caused by using invisible > > spaces for comment continuation, or did using '.' have the same problem? > > The problem is that Haddock expects comments to be indented to the > same level as the code.
Ah, I see. A more-correct thing to do might be to indent to the same depth as the next token? That would have the additional advantage of being able to document nested functions. > code. So now we indent comments by two spaces instead. Obviously won't > work for code that's indented with ">" rather than "> ", so you can't > Haddock comment such code Not with literate comments, but you can if you use Haskell comments on birdtrack lines, presumably. In fact, I hadn't appreciated that non-Haskell comments would end up being picked up by haddock. Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
