[Haskell-cafe] Problem with haddock 2.3.0 (again)

[Sean Leather]

> > That's quite a presumption there. I can certainly write a module that
> > compiles and produces documentation for Haddock but that is different
> > when compiled into binary form. Even without this particular problem,
> > I can see that being potentially useful.
>
> Sure, but it'd have to be a different cpp flag because the existing one
> is used for a different purpose.
>

But what purpose does __HADDOCK__ serve if not to inform a file of code that
haddock is currently processing it? Perhaps even better would be a
__HADDOCK_VERSION__ definition that allows for code to work through changes
in the tool. While CPP may not be the most type-safe tool in the world and
definitely not ideal for text macro substitution, it does do this simple
kind of job very well.

> This adventure has exposed a major problem with Cabal that I have run
> > into several times. It supports a limited set of external tools (e.g.
> > Haddock, Alex, Happy, etc.), but it supports them in a limited way.
> > Primarily, it is not possible to pass options to these tools (at
> > least) through the configure script.
>
> Don't you mean the other way around? It's not possible to pass extra
> options to these tools via the .cabal file and it's only possible via
> configure --$prog-options=
>

Sorry, when I said configure script, I meant .cabal file.

Regards,
Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20081211/06dd887e/attachment.htm