RE: [Axiom-developer] build-improvements and latex

[Page, Bill]

On Wednesday, November 08, 2006 4:39 PM Ralf Hemmecke wrote:

>... 
> Most of you opt now for renaming axiom.sty.pamphlet to something
> else (like axiom-sty.pamphlet). I rather like to see the general
> rule that the generation should go (Rule 2) :
> 
> noweave file.pamphlet > file.pamphlet.tex
> 
> no matter how many dots are in "file".

You should not forget to mention how the .tex name (which is only
internal) is converted to a .dvi name (which is visible to all
users). If you use latex with no extra processing then Rule 2
implies

  latex file.pamphlet.tex  --> file.pamphlet.dvi

-------

The rule used in the current Axiom make files is also simple
(Rule 1) :

  noweave file.pamphlet > file.tex
  latex file.tex   --> file.dvi
  
  no matter how many dots are in "file".

> 
> > Bill Page wrote: 
> > | Changing axiom.sty.pamphlet to axiom-sty.pamphlet and added a
> > | chunk named <<asxiom.sty>>= still seems like the right thing
> > | to do to avoid this "bug". I one sentence explanation in the
> > | pamphlet file should be enough documentation for such a simple
> > | change that is otherwise consistent with the rest of the Axiom
> > | source code.
> >
> Gsby wrote: 
> > I'm not disagreeing with that.  I'm explaining, *why* from my
> > perspective, that exception to the general rule is acceptable
> > -- even when I don't find it perfect or don't like it.
>

I do not understand your point of view. As far as I can see there
is *no* exception to the either Rule 1 or Rule 2! What do you think
is violated by the use of the "axiom-sty.pamphlet" file name?

Perhaps you are really concerned about a different more implicit
rule (Rule 3) :

  The 'file' part of the file.pamphlet name should the same as the
  "name" of the program in the file - in other words the same as
  the name of a code chunk in the file.

Of course if there is only one such code chunk then it is natural
to try to make these names the same or at least similar. But the
application of Rule 3 is not always straightforward. If there is
more than one program or style file in the pamphlet file there
will be multiple code chunk names.
 
> Why would you accept even a single exception if you can have 
> something without it?
> 

There is *no* exception to the rule whether we choose Rule 1 or
Rule 2.

If we try to apply *both* Rule 1 and Rule 3, without renaming
axiom.sty.pamphlet to axiom-sty.pamphlet, then in this single
case of a file continuing a code chunk named <<axiom.sty>>= the
result is a conflict with the behavior of latex.

If we apply *both* Rule 2 and Rule 3, then yes this single
problem case is avoided. BUT *all* the names of all the dvi
files and the internal .tex files will change to include the
extra 'pamphlet' suffix.

But if we admit just *one more* exception to Rule 3 (there are
already many exceptions to Rule 3 in the src/algebra files),
then the combination of Rule 1 and Rule 3 is ok because we are
not obliged to make the file name and the chunk name the same
even though at this time there is only one code chunk in the
axiom-sty.pamphlet file. And we do not change any of the other
names of the intermediate .tex or external .dvi files.

-----------

Ok. I think that really is my last word on this subject! :-) In
the end I will agree to either of these choices. I just think
that Rule 1 with a small compromise to Rule 3 is the most simple
and easy approach. Obviously both methods will solve the problem.

Regards,
Bill Page.