Haddock, .lhs, and GHC
richardg at richardg.name
Mon Jun 16 10:14:39 EDT 2008
I never thought about that. I've been using Setup.hs with
"#!/usr/bin/env runhaskell" and never had any problems.
I guess the only thing that would be gained by using Setup.lhs is the
ability to compile the setup program. Is that something that's commonly
Johannes Waldmann wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>> Does this mean that literate source files should be discouraged? They
>> seem to be fairly common, especially in conjunction with Cabal (i.e.,
> I think the reason for having Setup.lhs instead of Setup.hs
> is that you can put #!/usr/local/bin/runhaskell
> in their first line. Then chmod +x Setup.lhs
> and you can do ./Setup.lhs configure etc.
> So, this has nothing to do with literate programming.
> Best regards, J.W.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users