# Super Haddock (was Re: Literate Programming)

Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:59:05 +0100

On Friday 25 April 2003 09:09, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > That's an interesting idea.  It's not at all what Haddock 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.

That makes two of us.
I've been doing almost all my haskell work using lhs files + LaTeX, and I'd
really miss it if was removed someday. Haddock documentation seems very nice
but it serves a diferent purpose.

J.A.