On Fri, 2007-06-07 at 18:43 -0700, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
> > It doesn't appear to be either of these. My own projects use no form of
> > pre-processing and exhibit exactly the same problem: a parse error on
> > first character of the line after the first Haddock comment. I don't
> > know if the H
On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 09:40:57AM +0800, Michael T. Richter wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-07 at 18:22 -0700, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
>
> > You've just ran into Cabal bug #14, or maybe #102.
>
>
>
> > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/hackage/ticket/14
> > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/hackage/ticket/1
On Fri, 2007-06-07 at 18:22 -0700, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
> You've just ran into Cabal bug #14, or maybe #102.
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/hackage/ticket/14
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/hackage/ticket/102
It doesn't appear to be either of these. My own projects use no form of
pre-pr
On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 11:17 +1000, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
> Check that the comment is not using one the chars invalid in
> H98/haddock. '/' is a common source of issues.
I really hope that the Haddock source doesn't use invalid Haddock
comments
;)
--
Michael T. Richter <[EMAIL PROTE
On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 09:11:55AM +0800, Michael T. Richter wrote:
> I've been wrestling the last few days with putting Haddock documentation
> into my code. After a dead-simple library failed to generate anything
> meaningful, I gave up, turfed my copy of Haddock and downloaded the
> latest from
ttmrichter:
>
>I've been wrestling the last few days with putting Haddock
>documentation into my code. After a dead-simple library
>failed to generate anything meaningful, I gave up, turfed my
>copy of Haddock and downloaded the latest from the web
>site. (Haddock 0.8, it see
I've been wrestling the last few days with putting Haddock documentation
into my code. After a dead-simple library failed to generate anything
meaningful, I gave up, turfed my copy of Haddock and downloaded the
latest from the web site. (Haddock 0.8, it seems.)
runhaskell Setup.lhs conf
