haddock-2.3.0 literate comments discarded from .lhs input
Malcolm.Wallace at cs.york.ac.uk
Mon Feb 9 10:36:43 EST 2009
Duncan Coutts <duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Someone was complaining the other day that the hscolour output
> run on the result of happy is not really readable,
To clarify, what he said was that hscolouring Happy output did not
_enhance_ its readability. In other words, you can put lipstick on a
pig, but it's still a pig.
> but then it's not
> clear if running it on the happy input would be any better.
Try it! I reckon it looks pretty good actually. Lexically, the
difference between Happy and H'98 sources is negligible.
> For the particular case of .lhs and cpp, I hope we'd get better
> hscolour output by not running unlit or cpp first. Malcolm says it'll
> at least do something. So it seems worth checking which ends up
> looking more useful.
It seems likely that preserving the literate comments is the sensible
thing to do, since we are linking together documentation here
(haddock/source). HsColour has -lit and -lit-tex options, to avoid
colouring the literate comments from a .lhs.
More information about the cabal-devel