Benjamin Franksen wrote:
I just wanted to check the precedence of the (.) operator from Prelude
(http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/base/Prelude.html)
and noticed with shock ;) that neither precedence levels nor fixity are
documented. Is this a known limitation of haddock?
On Sunday 15 May 2005 8:24 pm, Dominic Steinitz wrote:
On Sun, 2005-05-15 at 18:51 +0100, Dominic Steinitz wrote:
/ Dominic Steinitz writes:
//
// I've downloaded
//
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/base/base.haddock
and I // still get the same errors. Is this
Dominic Steinitz writes:
I've now used the -v option and it looks like haddock
can't find the html files even though they are there :-(
Anyone have any ideas?
Maybe the interface description files are broken,
incomplete, or incompatible with your Haddock version?
budweis:~/work/Codec$
Dominic Steinitz writes:
I've now used the -v option and it looks like haddock
can't find the html files even though they are there :-(
Anyone have any ideas?
Maybe the interface description files are broken,
incomplete, or incompatible with your Haddock version?
On Sun, 2005-05-15 at 18:51 +0100, Dominic Steinitz wrote:
Dominic Steinitz writes:
I've downloaded
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/base/base.haddock and I
still get the same errors. Is this incompatible with Haddock version 0.6?
Probably so because the current ghc
On Sun, 2005-05-15 at 18:51 +0100, Dominic Steinitz wrote:
/ Dominic Steinitz writes:
//
// I've downloaded
// http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/base/base.haddock and I
// still get the same errors. Is this incompatible with Haddock version 0.6?
/
Probably so because the
On 05 May 2005 06:34, Sean Seefried wrote:
When I look in the Haddock generated code at:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/base/
Control.Monad.html#t%3AMonadPlus, I don't seem to find any reference
to the IO monad being an instance of the MonadPlus class.
But when I
On 11 February 2005 17:44, Peter Simons wrote:
Processing the file
module Test where
-- |Haddock chokes on this.
(#):: a - (a - b) - b
a # f = f a
with Haddock 0.6 gives an error:
| haddock test.hs
| test.hs:5:3: Parse error
Since GHC deals with this code just fine, I
Simon Marlow writes:
(#):: a - (a - b) - b
a # f = f a
Haddock parses GHC extensions by default, so its syntax
corresponds to GHC with -fglasgow-exts.
I see. Thanks for the clarification. Fortunately, writing ( # )
instead solves the problem. ;-)
Peter
On 28 September 2004 16:06, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
On the theme of improving Haddock, do you think it could be fixed to
generate valid HTML? Here are some examples of the errors I get when
running Haddock output through validate (the Web Design Group's
HTML and XML validator).
Oops! I did
On 30 September 2004 10:08, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 28 September 2004 16:06, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
On the theme of improving Haddock, do you think it could be fixed to
generate valid HTML? Here are some examples of the errors I get when
running Haddock output through validate (the Web
While I am at it: There is another (rather simple) feature
I'd like to see in Haddock. I often link to
Haddock-generated documentation on my web pages, but there
is no way for me to link _back_ from the Haddock output.
Would it be possible to add command line switch to specify
an up link and the
On the theme of improving Haddock, do you think it could be fixed to
generate valid HTML? Here are some examples of the errors I get when
running Haddock output through validate (the Web Design Group's
HTML and XML validator).
*** Errors validating Text.XML.HaXml.Combinators.html: ***
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 04:05:59PM +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
On the theme of improving Haddock, do you think it could be fixed to
generate valid HTML?
Maybe it would be a good idea to use Peter Thiemann's WASH/HTML
library? Dependence on external library is one obvious (small?) problem
that
Simon Marlow writes:
The tree is expanded by default now (Sven Panne made the
change a few days ago).
I have rebuilt everything from CVS HEAD moments ago and the
generated reference documentation still comes with the menus
collapsed. Am I doing something wrong?
Peter
Simon Marlow writes:
This change has now been made.
Uh ... any hints what has changed? A new command line flag?
we need a way to retain the collapsed/expanded state
between page transitions (JavaScript hackers apply
here!).
I am not certain whether these collapsed menus are a good
On 09 May 2004 15:07, Stefan Reich wrote:
I hope this is the right place to ask about Haddock problems?
I'm using Haddock 0.6 (RedHat RPM module) under RedHat 9. When I
invoke haddock on this file (Op.hs):
module Op where
infixl 4 :=
data a := b = a := b
I get the
On 07 May 2004 06:11, Adrian Hey wrote:
There seems to be a bug in Haddock 0.6, which causes it not to list
indexes which don't contain an upper case identifier.
At the moment I'm fixing the problem by creating a dummy data type
in my top level wrapper module..
data Dummy =
could Haddock be made to document also fixity declarations?
Yes, it's on the ToDo list.
Cheers,
Simon
___
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
I think there is some software to translate some DocBook
derivate to man
pages. Maybe one could use the DocBook export mechanism of
Haddock for man
page production. Just and idea.
Haddock's DocBook output support needs a lot of work - I originally
started on the DocBook output before
Simon Marlow wrote:
I think there is some software to translate some DocBook
derivate to man
pages. Maybe one could use the DocBook export mechanism of
Haddock for man
page production. Just and idea.
Haddock's DocBook output support needs a lot of work - I originally
started on the
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
[...] I'm looking for a documentation about these things.
AFAIK there is no real documentation for this, but Use the Source, Luke!
(i.e. HaddockUtil.hs :-): The recognized labels are Module, Copyright,
License, Maintainer, Stability, and Portability. This fits nicely
with
Per Larsson writes:
Are there any plans of adding this as an alternative
output format in Haddock?
It might be easiest to support Docbook output in Haddock and
to generate all other formats from that -- including man
a.k.a. nroff. Adapting the HTML output for SGML or XML is
probably less of
Am Freitag, 2. Januar 2004 14:02 schrieb Per Larsson:
Hi,
When you have a good understanding of a programming library and only need
to quickly refresh your memory regarding the type signature of a specific
function, etc., I find man pages very convenient. Are there any plans of
adding this
hello. a few comments and questions on haddock
(www.haskell.org/haddock/)
1. haddock is great
Thanks ;)
2. haddock's interpretation of -- $ is un-great:
I have two types of -- $ occurences in my code
that conflict with haddock's idea of named doc chunks
a. CVS macros: -- $Id:
the Haddock documentation says:
-S, --docbook
Reserved for future use (output documentation in SGML
DocBook format).
I would appreciate very much if the output wouldn't be just
in SGML DocBook
but in XML DocBook format. Would it be possible to implement
it this way?
XML
Am Freitag, 21. November 2003, 13:42 schrieb Simon Marlow:
[...]
Hello again,
thanks for your response.
There are two issues:
Q. Will Haddock parse a file containing Template Haskell code?
A. No, the parser doesn't currently understand the TH extensions.
Is it planned to let it
I use haddock to create documentation. Everything is fine
except of the
references to standard modules. If I am using standardtypes
like Int or
String haddock wants to create crossrefs to these modules and
fails because
of missing sourcecode.
Is there a simple way to fix this?
Simon Marlow writes:
/usr/share/ghc-6.0.1/html/*/*.haddock.
Hmm, why is it that every question I asks resolves in a way that makes
me look blind or dumb? :-)
Thanks for the quick help!
Peter
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have another short question concerning the build process: Is there
any easy way to generate a Haddock interface file for the standard
libraries? I'd like my own documentation to contain links to standard
data types and functions, but processing the library sources directly
turned out to
I realise I have to give an explicit type for the functions but this still
doesn't get rid of the warnings.
Dominic.
- Original Message -
From: Dominic Steinitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 6:06 PM
Subject: Haddock Problems
Can someone tell me
Simon Marlow wrote:
Haddock understands the style of module header that we're using for the
hierarchical libraries. The module header is described in this document
(see the section Reference Libraries-Coding Style-Module Header):
At 14:58 04/06/03 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Haddock understands the style of module header that we're using for the
hierarchical libraries. The module header is described in this document
(see the section Reference Libraries-Coding Style-Module Header):
Andre W B Furtado wrote:
[Haddock cannot find perl]
This works for me, but I'm not a Cygwin/Windows expert so I'm not sure
what the canonical answer should be. On my system I have the Cygwin
perl.exe in /cygwin/bin, and this is also /bin under cygwin, because by
default Cygwin seems to
I just tried haddock-0.1. Good thing! Two quibbles, though:
* the parser chokes on CVS headers like -- $Id ...$
( but -- -- $Id ..$ is OK)
Yes, because '-- $' has a special meaning in Haddock (it's a named
documentation comment).
* is there support for hierarchical namespaces?
( with
101 - 135 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
