Can the Haddock library expose more (then just reading interface
jnf at arcor.de
Sat Dec 19 06:35:26 EST 2009
I've ported part of the Leksah metadata collection to use Haddock.
But, now it comes, I have not created another backend, but would like to use
Haddock as a
library and call "createInterface" directly.
So I need to change the exposed-modules section of haddock.cabal file to
"Haddock.Types Haddock.Interface Haddock.Options"
Would that be an acceptable patch for the general release, or do you feel it
to be too unhygienic or something?
The decision came because:
1. Leksah needs to write a binary format, so that the backend would have
introduced new dependencies. (binary, binary-shared)
2. Leksah collects information from a variety of sources dynamically and
a more flexible approach:
- .hi files(installed packages without sources),
- haddock (packages with sources that compiles)
- parsing sources (projects you work on, which may for now not typecheck or
This can be better and more efficiently be implemented with a library
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Can-the-Haddock-library-expose-more-%28then-just-reading-interface-files%29--tp26854367p26854367.html
Sent from the Haskell - Libraries mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the Libraries