Super Haddock (was Re: Literate Programming)
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:26:09 -0700
On Wednesday 23 April 2003 10:41 am, Steffen Mazanek wrote:
> Simon Marlow wrote:
> >I don't think that's entirely fair. Most of the libraries that come
> >with GHC (and Hugs, and soon Nhc) are documented. See for example
> > http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/base/index.html
> As far as I know (please correct me, if I err) one shortcoming of
> Haddock is its restriction to .hs-files.
This seems like a good way of transitioning from .lhs to 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.
I use haddock to document interfaces for modules and it works wonderfully
for that (and it would be even better if I could use haddock comments
inside records and in between constructor arguments, hint, hint).
But I find myself using it in comments within code (especially within local
functions) too. Perhaps a haddock that had two modes (one for interfaces,
one for implementation) would work. The interface mode would work as it
does now. The implementation mode would produce a .html version of the
entire module, using haddock comments to mark it up.
Simon: how much work would this be?
Andy Moran Ph. (503) 526 3472
Galois Connections Inc. Fax. (503) 350 0833
3875 SW Hall Blvd. http://www.galois.com
Beaverton, OR 97005 email@example.com