Can we get a little more information on what pandoc is doing? Is there a documentation link? In part am wondering if it is possible to have a Foo.hs.md file that pandoc compiles down to Foo.hs with or without help from GHC.
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Merijn Verstraaten <mer...@inconsistent.nl>wrote: > Ola! > > I didn't know what the most appropriate venue for this proposal was so I > crossposted to haskell-prime and glasgow-haskell-users, if this isn't the > right venue I welcome advice where to take this proposal. > > Currently the report does not specify the mapping between filenames and > module names (this is an issue in itself, it essentially makes writing > haskell code that's interoperable between compilers impossible, as you > can't know what directory layout each compiler expects). I believe that a > minimal specification *should* go into the report (hence, haskell-prime). > However, this is a separate issue from this proposal, so please start a new > thread rather than sidetracking this one :) > > The report only mentions that "by convention" .hs extensions imply normal > haskell and .lhs literate haskell (Section 10.4). In the absence of > guidance from the report GHC's convention of mapping module Foo.Bar.Baz to > Foo/Bar/Baz.hs or Foo/Bar/Baz.lhs seems the only sort of standard that > exists. In general this standard is nice enough, but the mapping of > literate haskell is a bit inconvenient, it leaves it completelyl ambiguous > what the non-haskell content of said file is, which is annoying for tool > authors. > > Pandoc has adopted the policy of checking for further file extensions for > literate haskell source, e.g. Foo.rst.lhs and Foo.md.lhs. Here .rst.lhs > gets interpreted as being reStructured Text with literate haskell and > .md.lhs is Markdown with literate haskell. Unfortunately GHC currently maps > filenames like this to the module names Foo.rst and Foo.md, breaking > anything that wants to import the module Foo. > > I would like to propose allowing an optional extra extension in the pandoc > style for literate haskell files, mapping Foo.rst.lhs to module name Foo. > This is a backwards compatible change as there is no way for Foo.rst.lhs to > be a valid module in the current GHC convention. Foo.rst.lhs would map to > module name "Foo.rst" but module name "Foo.rst" maps to filename > "Foo/rst.hs" which is not a valid haskell module anyway as the rst is > lowercase and module names have to start with an uppercase letter. > > Pros: > - Tool authors can more easily determine non-haskell content of literate > haskell files > - Currently valid module names will not break > - Report doesn't specify behaviour, so GHC can do whatever it likes > > Cons: > - Someone has to implement it > - ?? > > Discussion: 4 weeks > > Cheers, > Merijn > > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users > >
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
