[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Texmacs-dev] Patch 1168
From: |
Nix N. Nix |
Subject: |
Re: [Texmacs-dev] Patch 1168 |
Date: |
03 Mar 2003 08:03:14 -0700 |
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 04:12, address@hidden wrote:
[...]
> > Unfortunately, I don't know how to execute these test suites. I have
> > tried adding either of the followings to my my-init-texmacs.scm file,
> > but I got an "unbound variable" error in both cases:
> >
> > (regtest-tmtex-table)
> >
> > (regtest-tmtex)
>
> The test suite are not loaded at initialization (because the casual user
> never need them).
>
> So you need to load them first, with something like:
>
> (exec-file "$TEXMACS_PATH/progs/convert/tmtex/tmtex-test.scm")
OK. Will do.
>
>
> > Consequently, I was unable to verify the test suites, even the small
> > change I made in tmtex-test.scm . I was also unable to add new tests to
> > the tmtex test suite, although I did test my code by converting this
> > file (attached["*.tm"]) to LaTeX to correctly obtain all table borders
> > (attached["*.pdf"]). I have also converted the same file to html, and
> > it seems OK, although I don't know what the capabilities of the html
> > converter are.
>
> For tables, the same as the old tmtex converter.
[...]
> If you you think you are getting in the spirit of it, you can try
> improving the tmtable code.
OK - maybe trying to factor out some of the common code in all those
accessors. Maybe ...
>
> BTW: a few notes about style.
>
> -- all code must be line wrapped at the 79th column.
Check.
>
> -- really try hard to make your code as readable as possible (your
> tmtex patch is not yet quite okay in that respect).
Well, I usually do something like this, before trying to make my code
look more like TeXmacs code:
(define (function arg)
(let*
(
(name (binding1))
(name (binding2))
)
(cond
((cond1)
(append
(list (arg1) (arg2))
(list (arg3) (arg4))
)
(else '())
)
)
)
)
... and then I condense it. As you can see, I tend to use a lot of
lines for making the code especially readable for myself. I guess I
must be more wary of the way I condense thereafter.
>
> That involves not trying to pack as much stuff as possible in a
> line, instead a line should be a unit of significance. But also
> you should try to keep the code compact.
One small thing I noticed along these lines: wouldn't
(let* (
(name0 (binding1))
(name1 (binding0))
...)
...
be better than
(let* ((name0 (binding1))
(name1 (binding0))
...)
...
? I know, it's less compact, but this way, all bindings are indented
likewise. The first binding is no more special than any of the others,
right ?
>
> Any good hacker will tell you: good code lends itself well to a
> pretty presentation. You can often tell good code from bad code
> simply by the shape of the text blocks on the screen.
>
> -- try to mimic the whitespace conventions you see in the rest of
> the code.
Check.
>
> I appreciate very much your code contributions. Keep going.
No problem. As I convince more and more people to use TeXmacs, I get to
find out what they expect of it. I want them to have what they expect
before they need it.