--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cliff,
>
> In some ways the discussion has strayed from the original question
> "is latex the best vehicle for describing pamphlets?". Thanks OK
> though.
Well, that discussion is tied up with what we want pamphlets to do ;-).
> OK. The inter-file \chunk{foo} reference was a bad example of
> something a weave tool could understand but latex could not, for most
> practical purposes. Im reaching for simple examples here.
Sure, no problem. I think it might be that only in the complex cases
does LaTeX becomes unsuitable - not completely sure though.
> > I would find either:
> >
> > <<add>>=
> > (defun add (x y) (+ x y))
> > @
> >
> > <<subtract>>=
> > (defun subtract (x y) (- x y))
> > @
> >
> > or
> >
> > <<add and substract>>=
> > (defun add (x y) (+ x y))
> > (defun subtract (x y) (- x y))
> > @
> >
> > preferable in such a case, personally - the legality of other
> > options just invites code that is more difficult to parse. Just
> > MHO of course. As the tool complexity required to handle the
> > alternatives increases, and/or the speed of processing decreases.
> > Is it worth the extra complexity?
>
> I dont think there is anything difficult or complex about it, this is
> pretty simple syntax.
OK, what about the readibility issue? Does anyone else agree that a
strict syntax makes for easier reading and editing or is that just me?
> I dont think anything I have been saying says "put all your
> documentation here". Im not really advocating any kind of structure
> at all. Im just looking at the problem space and seeing something
> which is not LaTeX.
OK.
> However, we need tools which would support your particular needs as
> an author and programmer.
It's fairly hard to define those tools without understanding the needs,
which is why I've been trying to wrap my brain around the cases you are
proposing.
> > Is there a particular reason why we can't simply do something like:
> <snip>
>
> Something along those lines is possible, absolutely.
If that is acceptable, it is almost certainly possible to have the
finite state based cl-web support it. Unless you prefer to remove the
finite state based code regardless, I can take a stab at adding this
functionality and doing some basic demos.
> > Assuming you want all information pertaining to a particular code
> > chunk in the same pamphlet and in the same location.
>
> I am not sure why it needs to be in the same pamphlet?
For simplicity. When editing the code chunk, it is much simpler to
have all documentation (API, research, etc.) pertaining to that chunk
to be immediately available for any updates.
> Lets use +++ comments for spad, docstrings for lisp. I am not aware
> of a convention for boot, probably just preceding a function with --
> comments would be enough for now.
Sounds good.
Cheers,
CY
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo!
FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
