I'm calling haddock myself. Cabal might have some special magic for CPP, when I searched for "haddock CPP" I got some old bugs about adding cabal support. So presumably it's possible. On Jul 12, 2013 1:15 PM, "Felipe Almeida Lessa" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Are you using `cabal haddock` or calling haddock manually? > > Cheers, > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Evan Laforge <[email protected]> wrote: > > So haddock ignores {-# LANGUAGE CPP #-}, which makes it crash on any > > file that uses it. But if you pass --optghc=-cpp, it runs CPP on > > everything, which makes it crash on any file that uses string gaps, or > > happens to contain a /*. /* is rare and easily fixed, but not string > > gaps. > > > > It looks like a workaround would be to manually inspect the files for > > LANGUAGE CPP and run two haddock passes, but then I would have to get > > the two passes to cooperate creating a single TOC and index. > > > > Isn't there some way to run haddock on files that use CPP? > > > > In the broader scheme, it seems perverse to be using CPP in the first > > place. I use it to configure imports and exports, e.g. to swap out a > > driver backend on different OSes, and to export more symbols when > > testing. Would it make sense to have a haskell version of CPP that > > provides only these features (e.g. just #ifdef, #else, #endif, and > > #define) and leaves out the problematic C comments and backslash > > expectations? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > > > -- > Felipe. >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
