> My understanding is that the following script:
>
> ----- cut here -----
>
> > foo :: Int -> Int
> > foo _ = 2
>
> \begin{code}
>
> bar :: Int -> Int
> bar _ = 1
>
> \end{code}
>
> ----- cut here -----
>
> should be valid and define foo and bar (although the report
> does say "It
> is not advisable to mix these two styles in the same file").
>
> However, in hugs:
> ERROR Q.lhs:7 - Syntax error in input (unexpected symbol "bar")
This is probably due to layout. The unliterate version of the file
would be
foo :: Int -> Int
foo _ = 2
bar :: Int -> Int
bar _ = 1
so the occurrence of the token 'bar' at a column less than that of the
first 'foo' causes a close brace to be inserted by the layout system,
closing the top-level declaration group.
> Secondly, in the following script (which I think should define main
> according to the report):
>
> ----- cut here -----
>
> \begin{code}
>
> module Main where
>
> main :: IO()
> main = putStrLn "Foo"
>
> \end{code}
>
> ----- cut here -----
>
> hugs:
> ERROR W.lhs:12 - Empty script - perhaps you forgot the `>'s?
>
> % nhc98 -c -o W.o W.lhs
> Warning: Can not find main in module Main.
>
> ghc -c -o W.o W.lhs
> W.lhs line 11: unlit: missing \end{code}
>
> Interestingly it works in GHC if you remove the white space before the
> end but not before the begin.
Yes, it looks like GHC's unlit program removes whitespace when looking
for \begin{code}, but not for \end{code}. The report isn't explicit
about whether whitespace is allowed on these lines, but I would tend to
the view that it isn't.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Hugs-Bugs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/hugs-bugs
