[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: literate programming pamphlet files for MathAc

Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: literate programming pamphlet files for MathAction
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:06:39 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616

Hi Martin,

> In ++ comments one might wish to include some mathematical formulae. > Writing them in MathML makes the ++ comments unreadable. Many > mathematicians can read LaTeX these days, so I would prefer LaTeX here.

Why on earth would you write them in MathML?

What would you suggest?

I am very much open to everything, even LaTeX, but there should be some standard of how to document with ++ and this is missing currently!

Would there be somebody else interested in this topic? Or would such a discussion be too early?

 > I would agree on some XML like style

I will not.

That was not a proposal. I just need some standard. And I was only thinking of XML since there are more and more tools that can handle this.

 > But still, the ++ code would remain untouched (and unformated) even in the
 > .dvi file (and thus maybe unreadable).

I don't understand this. For postprocessing and editing, use
example.spad.pamphlet, for printing the example.spad.dvi, for browsing the
.pamphlet.spad.html output, for computing the example.spad format. All of them
will include the code of the spad (or aldor) file -- always human
readable. Except example.spad.pamphlet, all files are read only.

All ASCII files are human readable, but that is not the point. One can certainly catch the information in $a_1^2$ quite quickly, but written in MATHML this would take some while (at least for some unexperienced person). This is what I mean by unreadable and why with an XML-like tag form, there would be a need of an intelligent editor.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]