I never thought about that. I've been using Setup.hs with
"#!/usr/bin/env runhaskell" and never had any problems.
I guess the only thing that would be gained by using Setup.lhs is the
ability to compile the setup program. Is that something that's commonly
done?
Richard G.
Johannes Waldmann wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Does this mean that literate source files should be discouraged? They
seem to be fairly common, especially in conjunction with Cabal (i.e.,
Setup.lhs).
I think the reason for having Setup.lhs instead of Setup.hs
is that you can put #!/usr/local/bin/runhaskell
in their first line. Then chmod +x Setup.lhs
and you can do ./Setup.lhs configure etc.
So, this has nothing to do with literate programming.
Best regards, J.W.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIVfxBDqiTJ5Q4dm8RAtZkAJ4r0qWQiUmQvsPhJMAFiccMvmJTQgCcCSH9
Y3Wph09j9/j2yJ2bsYYMXfQ=
=NIax
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
