What about Literate Haskell then? People write a lot of LH blog posts, so it would seem to be quite flexible.
Best regards, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 16:13, Dave Bayer <ba...@cpw.math.columbia.edu>wrote: > Part of the dominance of scripting languages is clean support for heredocs. > So much of every arena of life comes down to getting "It's not about me!" I > love Haskell but it doesn't get this. Imagine a document that's nominally > Haskell, but about 80% some other language such as TeX (e.g. code for a > self-generating textbook). Anything short of "these lines belong to the > other language, with not a single intervening character in the way" simply > doesn't work. So, yes, Haskell supports multi-line strings, but not > heredocs, a subtle but crucial syntactic distinction. Restated, one can cut > and paste many entire lines of foreign code into a heredoc, with no worries > about conversion. > > Heredocs should be part of the base spec of any credible language, with the > requirement "Can the language completely disappear behind another language, > in the source file?" As I said, the key issue is getting "It's not about > me!" > > On Jun 28, 2011, at 1:57 AM, Jean-Marie Gaillourdet wrote: > > > Hi Audrey, > > > > are you aware that Haskell already supports multi-line strings? > > > > foo = "This is a\ > > \multi-line\ > > \string!" > > > > See Section 2.6 of http://haskell.org/onlinereport/lexemes.html > > > > Regards, > > Jean > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell mailing list > Haskell@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell >
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell