axiom-developer
[Top][All Lists]

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

 From: Martin Rubey Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: literate programming pamphlet files for MathAction Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:38:24 +0000

Ralf HEMMECKE writes:
> Dear Martin,
>
> >  > Personally, I would very much like to get the functionality of JavaDoc,
> > but
> >  > unfortunately ++ comments might become unreadable in the .pamphlet file
> >  > (which is undesirable).
> >
> > why do you think that they might become unreadable?
>
> In ++ comments one might wish to include some mathematical formulae.
> mathematicians can read LaTeX these days, so I would prefer LaTeX here.

Why on earth would you write them in MathML?

> However, even the LaTeX style will not be there forever.

I doubt this. Well, for "forever" < 30 years, I'm pretty sure that LaTeX will
stay with us.

> I would agree on some XML like style

I will not.

> 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{%
> }

very nice.

> 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.)

I suspect that small changes (like typos) will be done via MathAction
directly. Bigger changes will be done locally, and I will certainly use your
srcltx modification! Thanks!

> But still, the ++ code would remain untouched (and unformated) even in the
> .dvi file (and thus maybe unreadable).

I don't understand this. For postprocessing and editing, use