GHC's CPP and Cabal's unlit

Jon Fairbairn jon.fairbairn at
Thu Jan 31 11:12:41 EST 2008

Duncan Coutts <duncan.coutts at> writes:

> On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 14:37 +0000, Alistair Bayley wrote:
>> 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.
> You are, but that's only because it doesn't currently work :-).

I would certainly have written my pedantic html library
using literate style if Haddock had worked for it without

> In particular I'd like to know how well it works for Jon Fairbairn who
> has .lhs code that uses haddock markup and he uses a little
> pre-processor to convert it.

(I didn't want to have to include that preprocessor with the
library, so used illiterate Haskell instead).

While I have a fair bit of literate Haskell, hardly any of
it uses Haddock, so I don't think I can supply a useful
amount of data here as it would take me so little time to
convert it to whatever form you end up with. Thanks for
asking, though.

Jón Fairbairn                                 Jon.Fairbairn at

More information about the cabal-devel mailing list