EMAIL PROTECTED]
To join, just goto http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskelldoc.
Best regards,
Armin Groesslinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Simon Marlow<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Henrik Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jan Skibinski <[EMAIL P
Jan Skibinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Volker Wysk wrote:
> > (Message didn't get through the first time. Reposting.)
> I tried to put an idea across that we do not need any
> tags whatsoever for any of those facilities.
> I really mean it. Neither XML ba
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Volker Wysk wrote:
> (Message didn't get through the first time. Reposting.)
>
>
> Hi
>
> What you suggest sounds like a solution that's easy to learn, useful, and
> can be implemented with modest effort. It might be the a good solution
> for the problem at hand, documen
(Message didn't get through the first time. Reposting.)
Hi
What you suggest sounds like a solution that's easy to learn, useful, and
can be implemented with modest effort. It might be the a good solution
for the problem at hand, documenting the haskell libraries.
However, if one would take thi
Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 12:44:11PM +, Keith Wansbrough wrote:
> > There seems to be some agreement at least that a clean and unintrusive
> > syntax like POD or the ISE Eiffel stuff is preferable to something as
> > noisy as XML; it certainly seems to
On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 12:44:11PM +, Keith Wansbrough wrote:
> There seems to be some agreement at least that a clean and unintrusive
> syntax like POD or the ISE Eiffel stuff is preferable to something as
> noisy as XML; it certainly seems to me that it would be much more
> rapidly adopted.
I was up all night and I need few hours of sleep,
so I will not be ready with any proposal till
tomorrow. In meantime you may take a look at
www.numeric-quest.com/news/NQ-comments.html.
This is a document I wrote many years ago, but
it seems reason
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Frank Atanassow wrote:
> Could you give us a link to a description of this mechanism? I looked through
> www.eiffel.com but could only find more general descriptions of the
> language/compiler.
Strange as it may seem, Bertrand Meyer decided not to
include a
Jan Skibinski writes:
> How come ISE Eiffel tools can handle all of this so
> nicely from a clean ascii, readable source code? As far
> as I can remember the only ugly looking comment line sits
> somewhere at the top and says something like this:
> "Document: $blaha $
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Keith Wansbrough wrote:
> Jan... could you write up a proposal for such a system for Haskell,
> with
>
> 1. The exact requirements (the comment conventions the programmer
> must observe), and
>
> 2. A list of what could be automatically generated by a system
>
There seems to be some agreement at least that a clean and unintrusive
syntax like POD or the ISE Eiffel stuff is preferable to something as
noisy as XML; it certainly seems to me that it would be much more
rapidly adopted. Regarding such a system's power,
Jan Skibinski writes:
> How come
In ideal world, programmers will be editing their programs
with fancy pretty-printing and editing tools. All kinds of
massive annotations would be then possible but they will be
invisible to a programmer's eye and not obscuring
his/her code. Compilers will
"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote:
> Unfortunately, this has exactly the same problem as Modula-2
> has: You have to duplicate types and comments for all
> exported entities, or leave the implementation `naked'. (In
> M-2, you had to repeat the type and people usually did not
> provide comments in
George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> "Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote:
> > IMHO it would be much more important to think about a
> > mechanism for automatically extracting all the interface
> > information (including the interface comments) from a
> > Haskell module. Something like an au
Jonathan King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Lout is a powerful language which allows you to place text or
>graphics at a specific point on the page
I'll just point out that these capabilities are *not* what one wants
to have in comments. I think we rather want *semantic* markup.
-kzm
-
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Jan Brosius wrote:
> > Jonathan King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > (Well, the person touting lout seemed to ignore the HTML
> > requirement...)
>
> I invite you to look at he following website
>
> http://www.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/lout/lout.html
But, of course, I had. When
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: HaskellDoc?
> (Well, the person touting lout seemed to ignore the HTML requirement...)
I invite you to look at he followin
Well, I probably should have skipped it, I guess. But just to clarify:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Frank Atanassow wrote:
> Jonathan King writes:
> >
> > [snip about the off-sides rule vs. actual delimiters, etc. jking]
> >
> >Am I the only person who finds that really, really weird?
>
> Mo
Volker Wysk wrote:
> I think, using literate programming techniques could be very useful. One
I'm not sure about this, particularly in Haskell.
There is a world full of literate programming tools for VLLLs
(very low level languages), where they should be much more
necessary than in Haskell, whic
Jonathan King writes:
> 1) Haskell code uses white-space as a delimiter by default, presumably
>because it's clean and intuitive.
>
>However: it seems like once a month (or even more often), it gets
>pointed out that the "offsides" rule that Haskell
>compilers/interpreters h
Ketil Malde writes:
> Frank Atanassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [a nice development environment] is easier to do this in LISP and
> > Smalltalk because they are dynamically typed. You could try for some
> > sort of reflection in Haskell, for example by starting with the
> > public Haske
George Russell writes:
> One further point I want to make. It should not be the purpose of the
> Glasgow Haskell Implementors to solve all the world's programming problems;
> they should focus on providing a good set of Haskell tools. As I think this
> discussion has illustrated, there are a
I wasn't sure exactly where to jump into this, but this looks like
as good a place as any:
On 20 Mar 2000, Ketil Malde wrote:
>
> Frank Atanassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I used to work with this in a previous life, so mind if I chime in?
> I'm by no means an expert, though.
>
> > First
Frank Atanassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What, you mean "apt-get install ghc4" is too hard?
> I guess you have never tried installing GHC on a non-Linux
> platform---although admittedly the situation is much better than it
> used to be.
I've tried on a different Linux platform, and decid
One further point I want to make. It should not be the purpose of the
Glasgow Haskell Implementors to solve all the world's programming problems;
they should focus on providing a good set of Haskell tools. As I think this
discussion has illustrated, there are a number of high-tech experimental
l
Jan Brosius writes:
>
>
>
> > Frank Atanassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Anyway, I don't think the choice of markup is all that crucial, but I
> > think markup for documenting Haskell should also be as functional and
> > elegant as possible. Is Lout a thing to consider?
> Frank Atanassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Anyway, I don't think the choice of markup is all that crucial, but I
> think markup for documenting Haskell should also be as functional and
> elegant as possible. Is Lout a thing to consider?
>
Yes, I think Lout is the best candidate
Ch
Frank Atanassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I used to work with this in a previous life, so mind if I chime in?
I'm by no means an expert, though.
> First, I agree with Phil, that if you are going to use a markup
> language, you should be using an XML/XSL solution instead.
I like XML's stricter
Volker Wysk writes:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Philip Wadler wrote:
>
> > Volker suggests using SGML/DSSSL for documentation. If one were to
> > take this route, I think XML/XSLT would be a more sensible combination.
>
> Why do you think so? I see the following advantages of SGML/DSSSL over
Volker Wysk writes:
> With SGML, you could achieve all the goals in a systematic manner. You
> would write Haskell-scraps spread over an SGML- instead of a
> Latex-Document. But then, the resulting document *still* is an SGML
> document. You can do all processing a literate programming tool wo
Hi
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Philip Wadler wrote:
> Volker suggests using SGML/DSSSL for documentation. If one were to
> take this route, I think XML/XSLT would be a more sensible combination.
Why do you think so? I see the following advantages of SGML/DSSSL over
XML/XSL:
- open source tools avail
Volker suggests using SGML/DSSSL for documentation. If one were to
take this route, I think XML/XSLT would be a more sensible combination.
See
http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/~wadler/xml
for a quick intro to XML. Runciman and Wallace at York have a nice
XML library for Haskell.
Volk
Hello
I think, using literate programming techniques could be very useful. One
could produce all of the following from the same source file(s):
1. Interface (user-level) documentation,
2. User documentation, manuals.
3. The actual Haskell source code,
4. A heavily interlinked HTML version of the
Volker Wysk wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> The mentioned requirements point to using SGML for literate programming.
> This would lead to a systematic approach.
Can you summarise please the main ways in which (as an example) GHC development
would be helped if SGML was used?
Hello.
The mentioned requirements point to using SGML for literate programming.
This would lead to a systematic approach.
See
Literate Programming with SGML and XML
http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/xmlLitProg.html
SWEB: an SGML Tag Set for Literate Programming
http://www.uic.edu/~cmsmcq/tech/sw
"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote:
> IMHO it would be much more important to think about a
> mechanism for automatically extracting all the interface
> information (including the interface comments) from a
> Haskell module. Something like an automatically generated
> Modula-2 definition module tha
George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> Frank Atanassow wrote:
> > What do you all think?
> Well I suppose that includes me, but I'm a bit confused.
> I've looked at some of the .lhs files containing the
> source of GHC, but the so-called literate nature of the
> code doesn't seem to me to ma
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, George Russell wrote:
> In any case, in the original example
> Who the author is, and what the version is, would be better handled by
> CVS or some similar system. The "" is redundant; if it doesn't match
> the filename, we have total chaos anyway. The is a drag; I suspect
> Karlsson Kent - keka wrote:
>
> Well, that doesn't even look much like XML: it's not well-formed XML.
Personally I'd rather people spent time trying to make their comments clear,
rather than worrying about correctness of XML tags . . .
In any case, in the original example
Html
0.1
Title: RE: HaskellDoc?
Well, that doesn't even look much like XML: it's not well-formed XML.
Somewhat more *well-formed*:
Html
0.1
Main import module for the Html combinators
The Haskell Html Library is Copyright ©
Andy Gill, and the Orego
If you've looked at Andy Gill's Html module, he's proposed embedding a
little XML in a leading comment:
{-
Html
0.1
Main import module for the Html combinators
The Haskell Html Library is Copyright ©
Andy Gill, and the Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and
George Russell writes:
> "D. Tweed" wrote:
> > Documentation is a vague term: certainly it'd be undesirable for a
> > specification to the libraries to just a literate copy of the code
> > itself. But if you're thinking in terms of an open source project where
> > people fix bugs in the libra
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, George Russell wrote:
> "D. Tweed" wrote:
> > * Comments that actually contain meta-program information, eg pragmas
> The Haskell standard system for putting information for the compiler in
> things which look like comments is obnoxious, but fortunately not _very_
> common.
"D. Tweed" wrote:
> * Comments that actually contain meta-program information, eg pragmas
The Haskell standard system for putting information for the compiler in
things which look like comments is obnoxious, but fortunately not _very_
common. I don't think it justifies adding yet another comment
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, George Russell wrote:
> "D. Tweed" wrote:
> > Documentation is a vague term: certainly it'd be undesirable for a
> > specification to the libraries to just a literate copy of the code
> > itself. But if you're thinking in terms of an open source project where
> > people fix b
"D. Tweed" wrote:
> Documentation is a vague term: certainly it'd be undesirable for a
> specification to the libraries to just a literate copy of the code
> itself. But if you're thinking in terms of an open source project where
> people fix bugs in the libraries then libraries that contain some
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, George Russell wrote:
> Frank Atanassow wrote:
> > What do you all think?
> Well I suppose that includes me, but I'm a bit confused. I've looked at some of
> the .lhs files containing the source of GHC, but the so-called literate nature
> of the code doesn't seem to me to ma
Frank Atanassow wrote:
> What do you all think?
Well I suppose that includes me, but I'm a bit confused. I've looked at some of
the .lhs files containing the source of GHC, but the so-called literate nature
of the code doesn't seem to me to make it any better. Specifically,
it doesn't do anythin
Hi all,
I have seen many systems used backends for the literate part of a literate
Haskell source file. There is the old literate system from GHC (now dead?),
straight HTML, straight TeXinfo, straight LaTeX, {Wiki,Smug,No,Funnel,...}web
and many personal LaTeX style files or programs which usuall
49 matches
Mail list logo
