[Haskell-cafe] Literate haskell format unclear (implementation and specification inconsistencies)

[Douglas Philips]

On 2007 Mar 3, at 7:43 AM, Ross Paterson indited:
>> but oddly doesn't seem to have been clarified in the report. We  
>> should
>> definitely make sure that Haskell' does so!
>
> Or perhaps we should get rid of \begin{code} and \end{code}, before
> someone proposes <code> and </code>.

UGH.

Since the "text" that is not inside of the \begin{code} and \end 
{code} is relatively unconstrained, would be it cool, or egregious,  
to have a comment which would permit a particular file to designate  
its own literacy boundaries? Bird beaks allow for simple markup, and  
the TeX commands all for trivial integration with (La)TeX, so would  
it really be all that demeaning to allow for other alternatives even  
if you wouldn't choose them yourself? Metaprogramming to specify this  
would be overkill, but constant strings would get you 95% of the way  
to utter generality. Anyways, thought I'd toss out a third  
alternative to "no change or remove TeX".

--Doug