Frank Atanassow wrote:
> What do you all think?
Well I suppose that includes me, but I'm a bit confused. I've looked at some of
the .lhs files containing the source of GHC, but the so-called literate nature
of the code doesn't seem to me to make it any better. Specifically,
it doesn't do anything that comment characters can't do. So could someone
explain what exactly literate programming for Haskell is intended to achieve?
The only thing I really miss in .hs files which is done by Knuth's Web
(in "TeX the program") are indices for each module indicating where the values
and types it uses come from, and where the values and types it defines are used.
Is the idea that the library documentation should be identical with the code?
Because I don't want this - I don't want to look at code, however nattily presented,
when all I want to know is how to call Posix.select (say). Imagine if the TeXbook
didn't exist and all we had were "TeX - the program"; I think it is clear that
people who find the TeXbook hard going would have even more trouble with "TeX - the
program".
OK, so I apologise if once again I am ranting without understanding a thing I'm
talking about.
