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

[Page, Bill]

On Tuesday, November 07, 2006 5:17 PM Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> 
> Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> > I oppose against special treatment of .sty files.
> > 
> > The general rule should be
> > 
> > notangle file.ext.pamphlet > file.ext
> > noweave  file.ext.pamphlet > file.ext.pamphlet.tex
> > 
> > remove ".pamphlet" and add ".tex". That rule seems to be
> > a bit simpler than having to explain why .sty files must
> > be treated separately.
> >

I don't think what Waldek proposes amounts to "separate treatment".
He is just observing that the existing name for the pamphlet file
conflicts with the behaviour of latex.
 
> 
> Well, .sty files _are_ special (normal files do not contain
> "self references").

I think Waldek is right. This name for the pamphlet file is
unusal. The only convention that we have is really just:

  noweave  filename.pamphlet > filename.tex
  latex filename.tex

and I think that is very natural because noweave always applies to
the entire file. Normally, the filename part does not contain any dot.

> And if you think about rule:
> 
> notangle file.ext.pamphlet > file.ext

notangle is completely different because it can either apply to
the whole file or to just one chunk of the file (-R option). If
we have a convention for notangle, then I think it should be like
this:

  notangle filename.pamphlet -R 'file.ext' > file.ext

> 
> this _is_ alredy broken by many files (in 'src/hyper') when we
> have
> 
> file.pamphlet -> file.c
>

Is there a case like this? Maybe it should be written:

  notangle file.pamphlet -R 'file.c' > file.c

With <<file.c>>= defined appropriately.
 
> or
> 
>                /-> file.h
> file.pamphlet -|
>                \-> file.c
>

In this case I think it is really

  notangle file.pamphlet -R 'file.h' > file.h
  notangle file.pamphlet -R 'file.c' > file.c
 
Right?

> I agree that you proposal is logical, but it is also clumsy:
> .pamphlet extension is already pretty long and sticking on it
> another extension will give very long files names.
> 

I think the only convincing reason that Ralf gave for his
convention for noweave was interaction with point-and-click
in dvi. But this could be achieved through a different
patch to srcltx. No?

Regards,
Bill Page.