"Andrey G. Grozin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, this requires some programming, but quite trivial - LaTeX syntax
> is very simple and regular (unless we play dirty low-level TeX games with
> re-defining character classes, etc.; such tricks should be certainly banned
> in pamphlet file
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The alltt environment is a verbatim-like environment except that the
> `\', `{', and `}' have their usual meanings. Thus, other commands and
> environments can appear within an alltt environment.
Right, so if I want to write code which contains a `\', say, and have
lat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The same effect could be achieved by making
>
> \begin{chunk}{C}
>
> automatically escape << sequences,
>
> \begin{chunk}{latex}
>
> automatically escape \
>
> \begin{chunk}{spad}
>
> automatically escape [[
> etc.
>
> Making this work would take some time b
On 7/21/07, Tim Daly wrote:
...
So, two points then.
1) "Rewriting basic tools is a waste of current and future resources."
...
There are no "current and future" resources. This is a volunteer effort
and we only get to decide our own resource usage. Objecting to the use
other people make of the
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Cliff, Andrey, Steve,
>
> I hope to demonstrate the ability to extract a small, well defined
> portion of a pamphlet file in response to an axiom help command
> using the lisp-level weave. Thus I'd like to be able to say
>
> )help DHMATRIX )examples
>
> which i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Stephen,
>
> The current silver axiom.sty definition of the axiom environment
> definition uses the alltt verbatim environment which is shipped
> with standard latex. This could trivially be changed to use the
> fancyvrb environment.
>
> See the silver file src/doc/ax
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
Ideally, we should have the possibliity to have chunks written in
several languages in the same pamphlet, and to work with them
comfortably from emacs. Currently, this is not possible; so, I don't
think that the current setup is purfect and should not be
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 7/21/07, Tim Daly wrote:
| > Bill writes:
| > > Integrating noweb into Axiom to support the current pamphlet file
| > > format seems entirely reasonble to me. I think calling noweb as a
| > > system supplied utility is the best approach.
| >
| > In the
On 7/21/07, Tim Daly wrote:
Bill writes:
> Integrating noweb into Axiom to support the current pamphlet file
> format seems entirely reasonble to me. I think calling noweb as a
> system supplied utility is the best approach.
In the current system the result would be the same from the user
perspe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Steve,
>
> So the statement of your concern is:
>
> We need a weave function in order to enable possible extensions of
> functionality, and for integration with Axiom as a whole.
Yes. What do you think?
Steve
___
Axi
On 7/21/07, Tim Daly wrote:
Is a fair statement of your position:
The status quo use of noweb is entirely adequate.
Yes. I think it is entirely adequate for the use of literate
programming as it exists now in Axiom. No significant improvement can
be made by incremental changes to this approa
On 21 Jul 2007 01:46:32 -0400, Stephen Wilson wrote:
"Andrey G. Grozin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> But in the majority of cases, weaving will by just the
> identity transformation. I think this is a Good Thing - saving build
> time and the necessity to learn one more syntax.
Every lite
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Steve,
>
> Another try: Would a correct summary of your concern be:
>
> We need to provide a weave function in order to enable possible future
> pamphlet format extensions.
Close :) I would say that we need a weave function in order to enable
possible extensions of
"Andrey G. Grozin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> An additional advantage is that in the simplest case (which
> means 100% of cases now, but may decrease to 99% in the future) we can
> directly run LaTeX on pamphlet files, thus saving build time.
You might save one or two seconds on a file 20
"Andrey G. Grozin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I'll have a look how \begin{verbatim} ... \end{verbatim} is handled in
> auctex. I am sure this can be generalized in such a way that chunks
> written in some programming language will be syntax-highlighted by an
> appropriate mode.
Take a lo
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would a correct summary of your concern be:
Axiom pamphlet format should not be restricted to latex syntax?
No, I dont think so. The syntax does not bother me in any way.
I cannot see how we can get past the the need for a
Tim,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Stephen,
>
> Would a correct summary of your concern be:
> Axiom pamphlet format should not be restricted to latex syntax?
No, I dont think so. The syntax does not bother me in any way.
I cannot see how we can get past the the need for a weave stage in
general
17 matches
Mail list logo
