axiom-developer
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: literate programming pamphlet files for MathAc

 From: Ralf HEMMECKE Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: literate programming pamphlet files for MathAction Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:27:02 +0200 User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616

Dear Martin,


 > Personally, I would very much like to get the functionality of JavaDoc, but
> (which is undesirable).

why do you think that they might become unreadable?



In ++ comments one might wish to include some mathematical formulae. Writing them in MathML makes the ++ comments unreadable. Many mathematicians can read LaTeX these days, so I would prefer LaTeX here.
However, even the LaTeX style will not be there forever.


I would agree on some XML like style, but this should come with an editor that hides the tags and presents the things inside nicely. (I know it is not well thought of.)


Personally, I became familiar with noweb only recently, and it works great. The \usepackage{srcltx} facility together with some newer dvi viewers like kdvi or xdvi, let you 'inverse search' in the dvi file. When you click at some place in the .dvi file, your editor opens and points directly to the place in the .tex file. I have a modified version of srcltx that jumps to the place in the corresponding .nw file instead of the generated .tex file. I have simply replaced

\def\src@@include#1#2{%
}

in srcltx 2004/05/15 v1.4

by

\def\src@@include#1#2{%
}

In connection to the extension rule of just adding .tex to the noweb file

noweave FILE.nw > FILE.nw.tex

this works quite nicely for me.


But maybe this inverse-search facility is not necessary if pamphlet files are edited via MathAction or LaTeXWiki. (Unfortunately, I have no experiences with the latter.)


But still, the ++ code would remain untouched (and unformated) even in the .dvi file (and thus maybe unreadable). So I have not quite made up my mind of how to document in a structured way by using the ++ comments.

Ralf