haddock-2.3.0 literate comments discarded from .lhs input

Malcolm Wallace Malcolm.Wallace at cs.york.ac.uk
Mon Feb 9 10:36:43 EST 2009

Duncan Coutts <duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

> Someone was complaining the other day that the hscolour output
> run on the result of happy is not really readable,

To clarify, what he said was that hscolouring Happy output did not
_enhance_ its readability.  In other words, you can put lipstick on a
pig, but it's still a pig.

> but then it's not
> clear if running it on the happy input would be any better.

Try it!  I reckon it looks pretty good actually.  Lexically, the
difference between Happy and H'98 sources is negligible.

> For the particular case of .lhs and cpp, I hope we'd get better
> hscolour output by not running unlit or cpp first. Malcolm says it'll
> at least do something. So it seems worth checking which ends up
> looking more useful.

It seems likely that preserving the literate comments is the sensible
thing to do, since we are linking together documentation here
(haddock/source).  HsColour has -lit and -lit-tex options, to avoid
colouring the literate comments from a .lhs.


More information about the cabal-devel mailing list