C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You mean my original code vs. the finite state machine? The original
> code was almost certainly neither fast or flexible, so it's out. Of
> more interest is Steve's new work. I don't know how it does on speed
> trials. Steve, have you had a chance to run any b
--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh yes. If you google for "GCC" and "compile-time performance", you
> should have longish threads. I know of at least one coorporate who
> takes that issue very seriously (long before it became an issue for
> the whole community) and was willing
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:
| > From my perspective, a replacement of noweb with a noticeable
| > increase of build time is non tolerable. I value developer time as
| > much as I value user time. Longer build time means few build
| cycles.
| >
| > I'll seen the slippery slope in GCC come t
--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Gaby, you originally replied that you thought the speed was
> important:
> |
>
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2007-02/msg00154.html
> | I would appreciate it if you could weigh in on thi
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gaby, you originally replied that you thought the speed was important:
| http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2007-02/msg00154.html
| I would appreciate it if you could weigh in on this discussion, when
| you get a chance.
I have been trying desp
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (Steve, I do plan to go over your code in more detail, once I get time
> - work has been very time consuming the last few days and that has
> slowed me down :-(. )
Not to worry, the code has changed quite a bit since I sent you that
last copy. When you have the t
--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cliff, *,
>
> Just for the record, I delved into the pamphlet-as-latex thing head
> first and implemented my own noweb-like tool because I wanted to
> enrich my understanding of the issues.
That's always an excellent reason :-).
> The timing was m
Cliff, *,
Just for the record, I delved into the pamphlet-as-latex thing head
first and implemented my own noweb-like tool because I wanted to
enrich my understanding of the issues. The timing was motivated by
the steadfast insistence by Martin and Ralf that they did not want to
see the latex cha
--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, that discussion is tied up with what we want pamphlets to do
> > ;-).
>
> Not really. Even if all we want is functionality equivalent to what
> noweb provides, my objections to using LaTex are still releva
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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 ;-).
Not really. Even if all we want is
--- 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-f
Cliff,
In some ways the discussion has strayed from the original question "is
latex the best vehicle for describing pamphlets?". Thanks OK though.
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > Look at the algebra, for example. Look at the interrelationships. Do
> > you want to write your algebra
Stephen Wilson wrote:
> C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> --- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> What if \chunk{foo} resulted in referencing the Foo domain defined in
>>> another file?
>> I personally didn't consider it desirable to reference chunks outside
>> of a particular file
"Andrey G. Grozin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > The critical and (as I am now seeing) subtle point is that latex only
> > sees the markup as a typesetting construct, where in fact the
> > construct means a completely different thing to the absolutely
> > necessary tools like weave and tang
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What if \chunk{foo} resulted in referencing the Foo domain defined in
> > another file?
>
> I personally didn't consider it desirable to reference chunks outside
> of a particular file - it makes it that much h
On Wed, 17 Jul 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'll confess I'm a bit confused, but that may be my fault. Questions:
1) How does going from noweb to LaTeX syntax change anything, besides
what needs to be typed to ID a chunk?
The critical and (as I am now seeing) s
--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if \chunk{foo} resulted in referencing the Foo domain defined in
> another file?
I personally didn't consider it desirable to reference chunks outside
of a particular file - it makes it that much harder to understand. If
the idea is to tangle
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'll confess I'm a bit confused, but that may be my fault. Questions:
>
> 1) How does going from noweb to LaTeX syntax change anything, besides
> what needs to be typed to ID a chunk?
The critical and (as I am now seeing) subtle point is that latex only
sees
I'll confess I'm a bit confused, but that may be my fault. Questions:
1) How does going from noweb to LaTeX syntax change anything, besides
what needs to be typed to ID a chunk? I don't know about noweb, but
the whole point of wrapping the cl-web state machine in macros was to
be able to handle
Forward:
Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Weave is only required to generate axiom-internal documentation
> > when we want to do special case work. Even if the weave step is
> > not performed the files are still pure latex. Thus,
> >
> > \spadcommand{
Forward:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > So. We need to have a weave step, which implies the files are not
> > latex files.
>
> The files are latex. Pure, valid latex. I'm puzzled why you don't
> agree.
>
> Weave is only required to generate axiom-internal documentation
> when we want to do spe
Forward:
Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > > I like the '@'
> >
> > So you're proposing yet another syntax? Non-noweb, non-latex?
> > How would it work? What are the advantages/disadvantages.
>
> I believe you already have a good idea of the concepts i
Forward:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > I like the '@'
>
> So you're proposing yet another syntax? Non-noweb, non-latex?
> How would it work? What are the advantages/disadvantages.
>
> Tim
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
h
Forward:
Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > >>The ESCAPE issue
> >
> > > Ok. Lets solve this with our own, smarter, tool.
> >
> > We did. The mailing list discussion was endless.
> > Check the archives.
>
> I am familiar with previous debates.
>
> Acc
Forward:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >>The ESCAPE issue
>
> > Ok. Lets solve this with our own, smarter, tool.
>
> We did. The mailing list discussion was endless.
> Check the archives.
>
> Tim
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongn
Forward:
Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > I'm puzzled. Why do you say that
> >
> > \spadcommand{}
> >
> > and
> >
> > \begin{chunk}
> > \end{chunk}
> >
> > is not latex? The \spadcommand occurs in the published tutorial
> > book, bookvol1.pamphlet,
Forward to axiom-devel:
From: Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Jul 2007 18:53:39 -0400
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lines: 17
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--text follows th
*,
A few items in this exchange were lost to axiom-devel due to an
omission in the CC field. Am forwarding what I think are the missed
messages.
Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tim,
>
> Thanks for your detailed reply. Im glad this discussion is happening
> as its making many thi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > I believe you already have a good idea of the concepts involved here.
> > Your trying to do the same thing but using LaTeX syntax. That would
> > be fine with me if it were not for the fat that it is not,
> > conceptually, pure LaTeX.
>
> Eh? Please explain what you
29 matches
Mail list logo
