Douglas Philips dgou at mac.com
Sat Mar 3 09:17:02 EST 2007

On 2007 Mar 3, at 7:43 AM, Ross Paterson indited:
>> but oddly doesn't seem to have been clarified in the report. We
>> should
>> definitely make sure that Haskell' does so!
>
> Or perhaps we should get rid of \begin{code} and \end{code}, before
> someone proposes <code> and </code>.

UGH.

Since the "text" that is not inside of the \begin{code} and \end
{code} is relatively unconstrained, would be it cool, or egregious,
to have a comment which would permit a particular file to designate
its own literacy boundaries? Bird beaks allow for simple markup, and
the TeX commands all for trivial integration with (La)TeX, so would
it really be all that demeaning to allow for other alternatives even
if you wouldn't choose them yourself? Metaprogramming to specify this
would be overkill, but constant strings would get you 95% of the way
to utter generality. Anyways, thought I'd toss out a third
alternative to "no change or remove TeX".

--Doug