axiom-developer
[Top][All Lists]

## [Axiom-developer] Re: \begin{chunk}

 From: C Y Subject: [Axiom-developer] Re: \begin{chunk} Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:58:43 -0700 (PDT)

--- Ralf Hemmecke <address@hidden> wrote:

> There is also the "listings" LaTeX package which should be
> considered.

That was the one I was thinking of.  If we can have a "default"
language for a file based on the *.langtype.pamphlet motif and then
toggle the language of the chunk for special cases (hence the optional
parameter to specify the language) we could use listings to give us
some really excellent pamphlet typesetting.

> Well, if Cliff wants several languages in one file, then an optional
> argument is a good idea. Again, an optional argument to an
> environment is easy in LaTeX. However, I am not so sure why I would
> want several languages in one file. Cliff, do you intend to mix your
> Aldor files with LISP code? Brrrrhhh.

I would prefer not to.  But the early indications are that all of
interp is headed for bookvol5, which is currently a single file.
Perhaps that will change, or the interp code will be all lisp?  If it
is unavoidable to have mixed code languages in one file, I do want to
make sure we can tell the listings package and mmm-mode what's going
on!

Also, if different files are eventually used in volumes, there will
probably be multiple languages in that situation.  We were looking at a
package a while back that might be able to actually do that - I didn't
get around to experimenting with it.

> Maybe you have also realised that noweb offers a way to make
> clickable code out of the code chunks. See the ALLPROSE
> documentation. I am heavily using it. It seems that nobody has
> considered that feature of noweb for use in Axiom pamphlets.

I took a stab at setting up allprose and didn't quite make it - I will
try again.

> So BEFORE you make the change to a new syntax, think twice about what
> you will be missing afterwards. If it is then impossible to link
> produce a link from one identifier in a code chunk to its definition,
> then I am strongly AGAINST that change. And note you would have to
> program all  that in LaTeX (or depend on the listings package or
> something the like and add a few LaTeX lines). I don't think that
> this can happen in just a few days if you want all the features that
> noweb has NOW.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the \begin{chunk}{chunkname}
syntax was intended to have the chunkname be mandatory.  Couldn't the
logic then remain the same and just go for {chunkname} as the target
instead of <<chunkname>>?  Perhaps even the chunk-within-chunk
insertion syntax of using the <<chunkname>> could be the same? e.g.

\begin{chunk}{Chunk1}
some code
\end{chunk}

\begin{chunk}{Chunk2}
some more code
\end{chunk}

\begin{chunk}{MasterChunk}
<<Chunk1>>
<<Chunk2>>
\end{chunk}

> The other thing is that there seems to be too much manpower for
> Axiom that people think about that syntax change. I guess writing in
> noweb and having a little script later that translates the <<...>>
> syntax into a LaTeX-like syntax automatically, is probably an easy
> thing. But we should focus on more urgent matters. Noweb syntax
> isn't too hard to learn.

No, it isn't.  But getting AucTeX to quit using \$ inside code chunks
during it's fontification is not so easy, or maybe I'm just not doing
it right.  Does allprose fix this?

> Do whatever you like. It is open source after all. But I am really
> not convinced that a syntax change should happen now.

Tim said not to worry, so I won't ;-).  I just wanted to make sure we
didn't need to start working on mmm-mode now.

Cheers,
CY

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com



reply via email to