[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer
From: |
root |
Subject: |
[Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer |
Date: |
Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:44:41 -0500 |
>
> I don't say it is generally a bad idea, but I cannot say that I like it.
> In particular, I don't see, why the variables TANGLE, WEAVE, etc. should
> be repeated in every file.
oh, this is an artifact of an OLD debate. people want to use their
"standard" version of notangle even though i keep telling them that
axiom applies patches. you ran into the problem (and solved it yet
again in a different way). axiom code needs axiom's notangle. but
i seem to have lost that war.
since i've also been porting axiom to various systems i've taken to
making EVERY command be a makefile variable as a matter of style.
i tried to port to FreeBSD and got bitten by the fact that certain
commands are not the same between systems. windows is a prime example.
it's a false generality in this case because i don't export these
Makefile-enabled pamphlets off my system (unless i send you a non-axiom
standalone program where i always use them)
t
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer, (continued)
- [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer, Ralf Hemmecke, 2005/11/29
- [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer, root, 2005/11/29
- [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer, root, 2005/11/29
- [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer, root, 2005/11/29
- [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer, root, 2005/11/29
- [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer, root, 2005/11/29
- [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer, root, 2005/11/29
- [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer,
root <=
- [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer, root, 2005/11/29
- [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer, root, 2005/11/29
- [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer, root, 2005/11/29