Re: Windows support

[Mark Summerfield]

Hi James,

On Mon, 09 May 2011 20:51:07 +0100
"James Mansion" <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2011 15:26:54 +0100, KHMan <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> I was excited by Lout but rather gave up when it seemed that I
> >> couldn't do the same things as on *nix and found the code style so
> >> impenetrable I couldn't fix it.
> >
> > Lout should build out-of-the-box with Cygwin. (But I haven't built
> > it recently.) [A]
> 
> Sure - I do try to avoid Cygwin tho.  And while I have vbox, I prefer
> to be able to run native in Windows most of the time (I get better
> battery life that way for a start).
> 
> What was most upsetting to me really was how hard it was to see where
> and how the command line to execute was being built.  I don't
> normally struggle like that.  I can't really find a polite way to
> describe the structure of it - its like the output from a funky
> source to source translator.

It would be a pity to give up on lout!

The build process is insane but not difficult.

In the source look for the 'makefile' file and follow the numbered
instructions in the comments at the top. Basically you have to set some
variables in the makefile and then run make. Be very careful of
instruction (5) though---some directories must exist and some must not
(yes, it is bonkers and used to catch me out all the time).
 
> No matter.  I'm trying Sphinx now, and at a push I could try to see
> how to generate Lout of the latex and docbook backends don't work out.
> Shame - I quite liked lout syntax.

Sphinx and lout are designed to solve very different problems, so my
guess is that if sphinx meets your needs lout won't---and vice versa.

-- 
Mark Summerfield, Qtrac Ltd, www.qtrac.eu
    C++, Python, Qt, PyQt - training and consultancy
        "Rapid GUI Programming with Python and Qt" - ISBN 0132354187
            http://www.qtrac.eu/pyqtbook.html