Request for comments on proposal for literate programming using markdown
marlowsd at gmail.com
Wed Aug 22 23:10:52 CEST 2012
On 22/08/12 16:22, Philip Holzenspies wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2012, at 16:13, Brandon Allbery wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Philip Holzenspies
>> <pkfh at st-andrews.ac.uk <mailto:pkfh at st-andrews.ac.uk>> wrote:
>> So, there are many things people read in the proposal that I
>> didn't want to put in, but the things I very much do want to
>> include get lost in translation also. I wanted to allow the GHC
>> source itself to be written in markdown.
>> If the existing source tree is using one form of markup, changes and
>> additions should really be consistent with what's already there
>> instead of introducing a new kind of markup. This could actually be
>> *more* disruptive.
> The point was that quite a bit of the GHC source has markdown-like
> things in it, using LaTeX-style code-fencing, but LaTeX-incompatible
> markup (like underlining section with ~~~~~).
I tend to gently nudge the codebase towards illiterate source whenever I
can. This is probably a personal preference, but I haven't been
convinced that literate code is worth the effort. I want the code to
look its most readable in a text editor, which is where I look at it most.
Now, perhaps if I had an editor that rendered the markdown on the fly
while syntax-highlighting the code, maybe that would tip the balance.
(the editor must be emacs, though).
I have nothing against adding the extension you propose to GHC, I'm just
not sure that we'll actually want to use it in GHC.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users