Standard module header trivia

[Frank Atanassow]

> I'm personally not very fond of the literate style, so that's why none
> of the existing hierarchical libraries are literate (I actually
> converted several of them from .lhs into .hs).  One reason is that
> Haddock doesn't understand literate scripts - or at least, it expects
> all the documentation to be in comments in the Haskell source, which
> leaves little reason to use literate comments.

As I recall, we once had a discussion here about program documentation in
which we (well, only some of us apparently :) concluded that literate comments
were good for documenting a module's implementation, but something else was
needed for documenting the client interface. And that led you eventually to
develop Haddock...

So I guess you are saying that in fact Haddock is suitable for documenting the
implementation as well as the interface. Is that right? OK, I didn't know
that; I will have to take a closer look at it.

Regards,
-- 
Frank