--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And you think such events would be sufficiently common to merit
> > going away from them as tags for references?
>
> Absolutely. If I design a piece of software I consider its
> `philosophy', the why of its approach to the problem.
OK. I was thinking solely about the Axiom codebase, but that is
probably too narrow a scope.
> I want a tool which can be tailored to axioms needs. But at the same
> time, I do not want to say that you can only write spad, boot, and
> lisp code with this tool.
Fair enough.
> C and C++ are sufficiently popular for them to be considered when
> writing a program which manipulates source code.
Especially since we are likely to be using libraries written in those
languages for some time...
> OK. My tool gives significance to @< currently in documentation,
> which introduces a chunk reference.
OK.
> > 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.
>
> Really? I always cite other code when describing a function which
> supports or uses it.
Hmm. OK. I look forward to seeing your new example - it should be
quite educational!
> > > @<The \texttt{WEAVE} command@>= ....
> >
> > Erm. That didn't occur to me. I always viewed simple non-LaTeX
> > chunk names as sufficient.
>
> For me it is not sufficient.
I guess I can see that. In a collection chunk, would you then do:
@<collectingterms@>=
@<The \texttt{TANGLE} command@>
@<The \texttt{WEAVE} command@>
etc...
@
That would be very interesting.
> > In cl-web, they both come out literally as they went in. Isn't
> > that desired behavior?
>
> latex the file and look at the dvi.
I did. Maybe I have something set up oddly here. Oh, well - no
matter.
> > So you want LaTeX typset comments inside the source code chunks?
>
> Sure, why not? Sometimes the explanation of an algorithm falls
> naturally in that context. We could number each line in a source
> code context automatically, but I dont like that approach
> exclusively.
So, we could (for example) have the latex mode use the tangle line
information to append each line with its line number per the tangled
file output? That would be sweet...
> Its a pain to always say "at line 34 we ....". Its also a drag to
> have to ensure that line 34 isnt typeset as line 33 or somesuch.
> Little creeping errors like that bug me, and I can avoid them
> completely by placing simple explanations in comments (and I would
> like to have TeXs math available to make the comments even more
> concise).
How would such comments be tangled?
> I will do it. Just because you wont doesnt mean its not possible or
> desirable.
Of course. My concern was that the complexity of learning how to write
pamphlets will be increased by using a tool that is so general,
resulting in driving away authors. However, that's probably wrong upon
reflection - it's not any harder than anything else needed for Axiom.
> We need tools which are accommodating to needs different
> to our own.
That actually brings up a point - how much of a uniform writing style
policy do we want to enforce in Axiom?
Cheers, and thanks for all your hard work on this!
CY
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search
that gives answers, not web links.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
