GHC's CPP and Cabal's unlit
alistair at abayley.org
Thu Jan 31 09:37:19 EST 2008
On 31/01/2008, Duncan Coutts <duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> I'm going to try and get this integrated. I'm not happy yet with the
> issue about blank lines vs '.' lines etc etc. I think that needs a wider
> discussion but I don't want to hold up what we already have.
OK. Ian voted for '.' as empty line, so I went with that as it was the
only comment, and was a positive one.
What exactly are you not happy with? Is it the unsightliness of the
periods in comments, or something else?
As for a wider discussion, I'm all for it, but I believe the impact of
this change on existing code should be negligible (pending further
testing, of course), so I'm not sure if we're going to get much
interest. I'm trying to solve the problem in a way that's useful for
me now, and, I hope, in a way that's useful for others. I get the
impression that I'm a pretty small minority in trying to generate
Haddock docs from .lhs source.
More information about the cabal-devel