On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:28:46AM +, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
> Below message was rejected because I included the screenshot which was to
> big. The screenshot referred to is now here:
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/2yy6tcy/6
(screenshot shows:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/librari
Below message was rejected because I included the screenshot which was to big.
The screenshot referred to is now here:
http://tinypic.com/r/2yy6tcy/6
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Philip K. F. Hölzenspies"
mailto:p...@st-andrews.ac.uk>>
Subject: Re: Request for comments
On 22/08/12 16:22, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
On 22 Aug 2012, at 16:13, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Philip Holzenspies
mailto:p...@st-andrews.ac.uk>> wrote:
So, there are many things people read in the proposal that I
didn't want to put in, but the things I
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:45:51AM +, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
>
> Absolutely true, but I came across this in the GHC-source itself. I would
> like the GHC-source to be literateable (not a work, but you know what I mean)
> in markdown.
FWIW, I'm not sure the work necessary to maintain corr
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Nicolas Frisby
wrote:
> Maybe just try again in a separate thread? Perhaps under a pseudonym! :)
Whoa, just realized once again that email is tone-deaf. I meant that
'pseudonym' thing cheekily: just to help differentiate the proposal in
a silly way. In no way was
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Philip Holzenspies
wrote:
> Anyway, the point is a bit moot. It seems obvious that the proposal had
> very little support and has been withdrawn.
>
This might be a poor time for it with 7.6.1 around the corner.
That said, I would re-propose *with code* (i.e. a p
On 22 Aug 2012, at 16:29, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> Even so. A concrete version of what I'm getting at is that ghc is
> self-bootstrapping, so older versions need to be able to build newer ones;
> GHC code using a new markdown literate preprocessor --- or, worse, one
> integrated with lexing o
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Philip Holzenspies
wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2012, at 16:13, Brandon Allbery wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Philip Holzenspies > wrote:
>
>> So, there are many things people read in the proposal that I didn't want
>> to put in, but the things I very much d
On 22 Aug 2012, at 16:13, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Philip Holzenspies
mailto:p...@st-andrews.ac.uk>> wrote:
So, there are many things people read in the proposal that I didn't want to put
in, but the things I very much do want to include get lost in translation al
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Philip Holzenspies
wrote:
> So, there are many things people read in the proposal that I didn't want
> to put in, but the things I very much do want to include get lost in
> translation also. I wanted to allow the GHC source itself to be written in
> markdown.
If
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Philip Holzenspies
wrote:
> Unfortunately, it seems the proposal is so poorly written that I've spent
> more time dealing with the misconceptions it creates than actually
> implementing the unlitter. I'll retract the proposal.
Maybe just try again in a separate th
On 21 Aug 2012, at 13:47, Edward Kmett wrote:
Ultimately your best bet to actually get something integrated will be to find
something that minimizes the amount of work on the part of GHC HQ.
Check.
I don't think anybody there is interested in picking up a lot of fiddly
formatting logic and c
Ultimately your best bet to actually get something integrated will be to
find something that minimizes the amount of work on the part of GHC HQ.
I don't think *anybody* there is interested in picking up a lot of fiddly
formatting logic and carving it into stone.
They might be slightly less inclin
On 14 Aug 2012, at 07:48, Simon Hengel wrote:
> Personally, still do not see the big benefit for all that work, and I'm
> still somewhat worried that a mechanism that is not used by default (I'm
> talking about unliting with an external command) may start to bit rot.
> But as long as you are commit
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:20:53PM +, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
> > I see some value in your proposal to replace GHC's unlit, mainly in
> > terms of setting a common standard. Personally, I'd still feel more
> > comfortable if that proposed standard would be developed as a Hackage
> > package,
Dear Simon,
On 13 Aug 2012, at 15:18, Simon Hengel wrote:
> Thanks a lot for the clarification.
>
> I see some value in your proposal to replace GHC's unlit, mainly in
> terms of setting a common standard. Personally, I'd still feel more
> comfortable if that proposed standard would be developed
Hi Philip,
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:57:44PM +, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
> > What is the benefit of doing so?
>
> - Simpler build environment
>
> - Easier to understand interaction and bugs resulting from them (viz.
> [1], [2]), because the interactions happen in the same domain
>
> - (as
On 13 Aug 2012, at 13:20, Simon Hengel wrote:
> What is the benefit of doing so?
- Simpler build environment
- Easier to understand interaction and bugs resulting from them (viz. [1],
[2]), because the interactions happen in the same domain
- (as mentioned in the proposal) Simplification of the A
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:02:59AM +, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
> My proposal, however, is to replace the external unlit
..
> by code *inside* GHC.
What is the benefit of doing so?
Cheers,
Simon
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskel
Dear Simon,
On 13 Aug 2012, at 10:23, Simon Hengel wrote:
> I think it makes sense, that you do not want to depend on pandoc for
> GHC's build process. But would a more lightweight unlit for Markdown
> work?
Ultimately, all unlitting does is replace things not in code blocks by white
lines. Bir
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:45:51AM +, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
> >> However, it's a bit of an overspec'd package to link into the
> >> compiler, don't you think?
> >
> > I did not mean to modify the Compiler. Unliting is done by an
> > external program. This already allows you to customize
On 9 Aug 2012, at 15:26, Simon Hengel wrote:
> Just to clarify, I was not talking about pandoc, but pandoc-unlit (which
> uses pandoc to unlit Markdown, see the README [1]).
Sorry, I was a bit unclear there. I know about the program and it depends on
the library.
>> However, it's a bit of an o
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 01:07:10PM +, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
> I have looked at pandoc and I use it for quite a few things.
Just to clarify, I was not talking about pandoc, but pandoc-unlit (which
uses pandoc to unlit Markdown, see the README [1]).
> However, it's a bit of an overspec'd pa
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:00:44PM +, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
> Dear GHC-ers,
>
> A little while ago, I submitted a new feature request on the Trac. I'm
> more than happy to build this myself, but I would like to get it right
> the first time, so I'm looking for comments from developers
Dear GHC-ers,
A little while ago, I submitted a new feature request on the Trac. I'm more
than happy to build this myself, but I would like to get it right the first
time, so I'm looking for comments from developers and users alike. If you're
interested in literate programming and would like to
25 matches
Mail list logo
