I think this thread has went to became a quest for One True Markup
Language...
I would like to propose a different approach: while we are at extending
Haddock why not make it possible to choose from a set of different
documentation plugins? Something that works akin to the type: Text -
On 4 Apr 2013, at 22:53, Aleksey Khudyakov wrote:
If we are going to change haddock syntax we should add ability to add
math formulae to documentation. It's not currently possible and it makes
documenting numeric code properly difficult.
How about support for .lhs files?
- both those with
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 06:29:51PM -0400, Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
You may think you know what's wrong, but you don't actually know
until you know how to clarify to the beginners. Note: harping on the
word any does not clarify, for the beginners exactly say this:
Yeah, t can be *any* type,
Hello,
i have an executable where i want to run profiling on.
I do:
ghc --make -prof -auto-all -fth Custom.hs
but it does not built and the output is:
bench\HLogo\Custom\Custom.hs:1:1:
Dynamic linking required, but this is a non-standard build (eg. prof).
You need to build the
You are using TemplateHaskell (-fth switch) which can be tricky. Please see
this documentation on profiling with TH:
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.6.1/html/users_guide/template-haskell.html#id624714.
Other than following the documentation I would recommend using Cabal
which handles the
On 5 April 2013 12:20, Andrew Butterfield
andrew.butterfi...@scss.tcd.ie wrote:
On 4 Apr 2013, at 22:53, Aleksey Khudyakov wrote:
If we are going to change haddock syntax we should add ability to add
math formulae to documentation. It's not currently possible and it makes
documenting numeric
I'm not proposing the LaTeX is used for hyperlinking the
reference - hence my comment about nicely integrating
Perhaps a \begin{haddock} ... \end{haddock} environment* ?
* This would only affect those using LaTeX/lhs - everyone else could haddock**
as usual
** haddock = whatever
Hi,
I also support the idea of having Markdown for Haddock. Using some well
established markup language would make Haddock much easier to adopt and use.
While I like the idea of allowing any markup language (let's say supported
by Pandoc) and freedom it gives to developers, it also has also
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Petr Pudlák petr@gmail.com wrote:
While I like the idea of allowing any markup language (let's say supported
by Pandoc) and freedom it gives to developers, it also has also drawbacks:
It makes contributing more difficult, if a project uses some wierd,
Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com writes:
I suggest that we implement an alternative haddock syntax that's a superset
of Markdown.
Definite +1 from me too.
--
John Wiegley
FP Complete Haskell tools, training and consulting
http://fpcomplete.com johnw
Personally I think Markdown sucks, although perhaps less than Haddock
markup.
Still:
* No document meta data
* No code block meta data like language for syntax highlighting
* No tables
* No footnotes
* HTML fallback is insecure
* Confusing syntax (is it []() or ()[] for links?)
* Syntax that
I forgot the mention the craziness with the *significant trailing
whitespace*.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:49 PM, dag.odenh...@gmail.com
dag.odenh...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I think Markdown sucks, although perhaps less than Haddock
markup.
Still:
* No document meta data
* No code
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Kim-Ee Yeoh k...@atamo.com wrote:
Could you say something about /why/ you make the suggestion? I, for
one, would be happy to google and read links, but what's missing from
that experience would be input from a fellow haskeller. In context. In
real-time. On
I like markdown and use it all the time. While I acknowledge the
problems that have been pointed out, markdown has the advantage of being
easily readable as it is in the source document, and not looking like
markup.
But I do want to point out one problem with markdown as a format for
14 matches
Mail list logo
