Super Haddock (was Re: Literate Programming)

Simon Marlow
Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:34:21 +0100

Ketil Z. Malde writes:
> "Simon Marlow" <> writes:
> > Somebody else=B9 wrote:
> >> This seems like a good way of transitioning from .lhs to=20
> >> haddock'd .hs.  In the long run, I think we (meaning Simon :-)
> >> should to extend haddock to take the place of the .lhs style of
> >> documenting code.=20
> > That's an interesting idea.  It's not at all what Haddock=20
> was intended
> > for, but that's not to say it couldn't be done!
> I'm not sure I would like this.  I guess I'm one of (the apparently
> very few?) who are using LaTeX lhs style (using \begin/\end{code}).
> Would a Haddock replacement give me the same kind of functionality in
> producing a nice printable copy?  I definitely have grown attached to
> having math, footnotes, page headings, sections, and so on.

Haddock isn't (intended to be) a literate programming system, so I don't =
imagine it will replace full LaTeX literate source any time
soon.  The suggestion is just that it could produce nicely-formatted =
source code complete with lightly marked-up comments - which I
think is a fine idea, and not too difficult to implement using the =
existing framework.

> =B9) As Exchange doesn't leave useful thread information, I'm not =
> sure who.  Simon and others, if you must use Exchange, could you take
> care to leave an attribution, prefereably including the message-id?

I can get proper In-Reply-To headers by avoiding Exchange altogether, =
but it requires me to select an option each time I send a
message, so I often forget (sorry!).  I've reported it as a bug in =
Exchange, but it might be a generation or two before it gets