Haddock, .lhs, and GHC

[Richard Giraud]

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 
done?

Richard G.

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.,
>> Setup.lhs). 
> 
> 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
> 
> iD8DBQFIVfxBDqiTJ5Q4dm8RAtZkAJ4r0qWQiUmQvsPhJMAFiccMvmJTQgCcCSH9
> Y3Wph09j9/j2yJ2bsYYMXfQ=
> =NIax
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>