--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But do the sequences << followed by >> occur on the same line in
> > source code often? That is the only possibility that would require
> > an escape.
>
> Yes. Particularly in C and C++ where these sequences are used for
> logical shifts.
And you think such events would be sufficiently common to merit going
away from them as tags for references?
> I considered the `full form' parsing rule, requiring that both paired
> delimiters are required to activate the sequence. But I rejected it
> because it was not very consistent. I prefer simple rules which
> would treat both this line containing the << and >> pair as being
> active, as opposed to this line with just one <<.
Hmm. I'll have to try out your solution and see how it works.
> > Out of curosity, can you think of an example use of << in Spad or
> > Aldor that would cause cl-web in its current form to make a
mistake?
>
> I havent tried to break cl-web in this case. If you want me to I can
> give it a go :)
Don't worry about it if it would distract you from your tool. I just
want us to decide on how to write pamphlets so we can start writing
said pamphlets.
> > Does this mean the document must begin with an @ symbol?
>
> No. In my code the `mode' is a documentation chunk at the start.
> However, if you do not start your document with an @ sign, then the
> first chunk is interpreted as a prelude, which is to contain latex
> commands to appear before \begin{document} is (automatically)
> inserted.
Hmm. OK.
> > OK. Does this mean you are working only off of these rules and not
> > altering your parsing rules inside a chunk body?
>
> Im not sure I understand your question. Could you elaborate?
In cl-web, the only time the << >> combination has significance to the
scanner is inside a code chunk. In documentation, it has no unusual
significant at all.
> > OK. I think I understand what you are doing. You are deliberately
> > making chunk references the same in both document and code, and
> > only treating them differently based on environment in the tangle
> > step?
>
> Correct.
I'm curious when you plan to refer to code chunks in documentation.
Thus far most of the references I've made are from chunk to chunk.
> I considered that but the weave stage generates the label references
> automatically for you, so unless you have a sixth sense about such
> things, you cannot predict what the tag might be.
I just used the chunk name as the label name in LaTeX, so a
\ref{chunkname} would work every time.
> Note that one of the main reasons of automatically defining the
> labels is to enable chunk names to contain LaTeX, which cannot
> be used as the label used to target the hyperlinks. I like being
> able to say:
>
> @<The \texttt{WEAVE} command@>= ....
Erm. That didn't occur to me. I always viewed simple non-LaTeX chunk
names as sufficient.
> > Again out of curiosity, can you propose a scenario in the cl-web
> > context that would require any character escaping?
>
> Sure, give the following code a try:
>
> <<chunk>>=
> (defun hello-world () (format t "Hello World!")
> @
>
> You wont get the `!' typeset, as its active. Try replacing the
> string with "!\LaTeX!" and see what happens.
In cl-web, they both come out literally as they went in. Isn't that
desired behavior?
\index{chunk}
\begin{lstlisting}[caption={chunk}, label=chunk, escapeinside={(s*t@ }{
@e*t)}]
(defun hello-world () (format t ""!\LaTeX!"")
\end{lstlisting}
\index{chunk}
\begin{lstlisting}[caption={chunk}, label=chunk, escapeinside={(s*t@ }{
@e*t)}]
(defun hello-world () (format t "Hello World!")
\end{lstlisting}
> Hey, you already have that feature in cl-web :)
Only as an automatic part of the weave process itself.
> Seriously though, I would use the feature to typeset comments without
> needing to teach the tool what characters introduce comments and have
> it do the escape to latex for me.
So you want LaTeX typset comments inside the source code chunks?
> I dont follow. I meant that <<chunkname>>[latex=true] would be an
> escape to latex.
Oh, we're on different pages. I ment
<<chunkname>>[lisp]=
lisp code
@
<<chunkname>>[latex]
latex documentation
@
With the idea that Axiom could ask for the LaTeX documentation
associated with chunkname.
> Note the ambiguity. I used the string "chunkname"
> to indicate that in the two contexts it has a different
> interpretation, not quite what you would expect.
I may be missing something. From my standpoint, the user will never
expect to have anything inside a source chunk typeset except what the
weave command itself automatically generates by redoing weave
references. The author escaping to LaTeX themselves is a non-issue -
it would never be done.
> Well, I have played with @( to be an mechanism to escape into lisp.
> So if I write:
>
> "@((format t "HI!~%")@)
>
> Then when tangle or weave is called, and the form exists in a chunk
> they process, the programs will print "HI!".
OK, I think you are using escapes differently from how I'm thinking
about them. I'd better wait for your code - I seem to be stuck in a
more narrow view of how I want pamphlets to work.
Cheers,
CY
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
