Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: coerce, cast, partial fractions

[David MENTRE]

Tim Daly <address@hidden> writes:

> Knuth invented the machinery for literate programming because he felt
> that the explanation of code should be arranged for the human needs
> not for machine requirements. If you look at the TeX literate sources
> you'll find he completely rearranges all of TeX to fit the need to
> explain design choices.

But sometimes machine requirements help understand human needs. It was
at least my feeling for literate OCaml code.

How many people have read the TeX book and understood it? Don't forget
that Knuth has designed his tools at a time were languages were quite
restricted. Nowadays, we have more elaborated tools, at the language
level. 

I have tried to read Knuth book on graph algorithms (which is also using
literate programming). I found his code hard to follow. Just my own
experience.

> I expect the Axiom code to be embedded in research papers (see
> dhmatrix.spad.pamphlet) and textbook sources. The code should appear
> "at the natural location" for the explanation.

I'll take a more deep look at dhmatrix.spad.pamphlet.

> So the whole point of chunking is the ability to move code.
>
> If you don't move the code then all you have are "inline comments"
> rather than literate programs. Inline comments are insufficient
> to handle mixing research results, which are the primary items of
> interest, with reduction to practice (that is, the code) which is
> secondary and subject to change.

Ok, you are probably right. But my own feeling is that inline comment is
sufficient for most of the code. This does not preclude the use of more
well chosen code chunk for very difficult points or introductory
overview.

Yours,
d.

PS: Tim, what have you done at the CVS tree? It seems that the whole
    Axiom source tree need to be recompiled.
-- 
David MENTRE <address@hidden> -- http://www.nongnu.org/axiom/