axiom-developer
[Top][All Lists]

## [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer

 From: Ralf Hemmecke Subject: [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:51:19 +0100 User-agent: Thunderbird 1.4 (X11/20050908)

Dear Tim,


well, i'm WAS planning to do a document-and-cleanup cycle on
axiom.sty so that (a) only the things that are used survive (there is
cruft from history in there (b) it formats nicely so i can append it
to stand-alone documents and (c) the macros are documented like
everything else. i haven't done that yet due to time. i did merge a
couple macros from other packages so that we could write axiom
documents that only depend on 1 package and we could include that
package as part of the .pamphlet file.


This sounds like hardcoding style files into axiom.sty. Who is going to
maintain them??? Even if axiom.sty is a literate program, it should not
be our task to maintain LaTeX stuff. A few commands is OK, but please
not all of those fancy style packages.


i hate getting documents i can't format because the author hasn't
included ALL of the tree of .sty files.



That is not a problem. Just put all necessary .sty files in a .zip archive and distribute them with Axiom. Whenever there is a new version of a package or just a new version of a whole LaTeX distribution, we might have to update. But to maintain the packages ourselves is just a waste of time. There are other people who can do it better. Our focus is on mathematics, right?


plus noweb (WAS) planned to go away in favor of an axiom implementation that had different features (like support for .booklet
 files which use an optional URL syntax in chunk names). that may
still happen but it is open for discussion.



I've once read something in the noweb documentation why Norman Ramsey has not introduced an "include" feature. One can put the files on the command line anyway and weave and tangle them together. Can I read somewhere about your reasons to introduce such extensions to noweb?
I also don't understand exactly what "booklet" should serve.


sigh. old technology again. ok. propose something different for the bibliography. i started on the bibtex thing (there is a
bibtex.pamphlet the src/doc directory which would collect annotated
bibtex references so we could keep them in one place and have a fully
documented bibliography. if you suggest what you'd like to see we can
figure out how to connect it to the bibtex.pamphlet and then spread
the new machinery all over axiom.



I imagine the following here. We have one big bibtex database. If someone adds a contribution, he/she should use bibkeys from that database. Only if there is no bibentry there, new entries could be provided in an accompanying bibtex file to the persons project (which would eventually incorporated into the ONE.

So the wrapper script would write

\bibliographystyle{alpha}
\bibliography{axiom} % the ONE bibliography file
\IfFileExists{\projectname.bib}{\bibliography{\projectname}}{}

at the end of the document (followed by \end{document}).


In the above code piece \projectname expands to the name of the person's project.


There is still something to do in a Makefile to generate the .bib file from its .pamphlet and run bibtex on the whole stuff. But that is simple.


-> )credits


you'll see a list i maintain of all of the people who seem to have contributed. having just done that now i see your name is not on that
 list (i'll correct that in the next release). when time permits i
run back over my email and add new people.



I don't remember that I've yet really contributed to Axiom. I haven't modified code at all. It's just taking part in the discussion.

Ciao
Ralf