Ralf writes:
> One should also be aware that the current Axiom-pamphlets are not really
> nicely hyperlinked and indexed. If that will be added then running TeX
> just once is not enough for a build.
TeX is run twice on every file, once for the first pass and once to
resolve the index/citations/et
Axiom's current default weave usage does not make use of the full power
of noweb's weave logic. Ralf's ALLPROSE (demonstrated in his
experiments on cl-web a while back) makes much fuller use of this logic
and at this time constitutes the most advanced weave output yet
demonstrated for an Axiom pa
@=
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:
@=
@
@
etc...
@
That would be very interesting.
And boring (because it doesn't use th
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > > >@=
> > >
> > > 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:
>
> @=
>@
>@
--- 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 appr
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- 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 seq
--- 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 y
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It appears quite often in Aldor, where it is an operator. There is
> > no reason to expect that it will not become one in Spad too.
>
> But do the sequences << followed by >> occur on the same line in source
>
--- C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK. My design approach would have been to keep references in
> documentation chunks in LaTeX and source code, but I'll wait and see
> what your approach is.
sorry - meant to say "My design approach would have been to keep
references in documentation different
--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It appears quite often in Aldor, where it is an operator. There is
> no reason to expect that it will not become one in Spad too.
But do the sequences << followed by >> occur on the same line in source
code often? That is the only possibility tha
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My thought (and this is JUST my thought) is that most of the time spent
> with pamphlets will be human beings editing them. In that context, the
> most important thing is for the human being to be able to easily read
> and edit the pamphlet. If we must escape the
--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Cliff,
>
> I think you are making some very important points.
Thanks. I'm trying my best to keep the "big picture" in mind here,
despite my burning desire to move on to things other than pamphlet
format ;-).
> C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Andrey G. Grozin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And it is equally easy to teach it to
> > understand \begin{chunk}{foo} ... \end{chunk} as the noweb syntax. One
> > layer less, no need to escape << and >>.
>
> What are the active escape characters i
"Andrey G. Grozin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And it is equally easy to teach it to
> understand \begin{chunk}{foo} ... \end{chunk} as the noweb syntax. One
> layer less, no need to escape << and >>.
What are the active escape characters in your model? The `\'? The 7
character sequence "\begi
Hi Cliff,
I think you are making some very important points.
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> My preference would be to use the following convention, retaining the
> weave step:
>
> <>[options]=
>
> @
I myself think that noweb made a mistake in choosing the <>
syntax. It stands out wel
Hello *,
Each layer of syntax brings in extra complications. For example, with the
standard noweb syntax one cannot use << and >> unescaped. When there are
many layers and many things to be escaped by different characters, things
become unreadable. For example, if I want to find all lines with
As near as I can tell, the question about tools used is not really the
important one for Axiom at this time. Choosing tools to use is easily
handled at build time. Of more importance is the details of how to
specify a chunk.
Axiom+Noweb currently uses the syntax
<>=
@
This has the merit of b
17 matches
Mail list logo
