> > > On 10/22/2006 12:42 AM, Bill Page wrote: > >> You are right and the Makefile is wrong. Everything with extension > >> .pamphlet should be processed by noweave before calling latex. > > > > nope. that's not the case. > >
???? > > noweb is just a preprocessing tool, not a requirement for > > literate programming. > > Well, yah. That's true. > > there is no requirement (or intended requirement) that a .pamphlet > > file implies running noweb. some of the files in any documented > > axiom system will not contain code and will not need noweb. they > > are, however, perfectly vaild .pamphlet files. > > Tim, that's just stupid. A .pamphlet file has to have a well defined format or it's useless. Why not just call then .apple or .macintosh files, then? ;) I didn't mean *necessarily* noweb, but right now that is the best definition we have of what a pamphlet file is. On October 21, 2006 7:09 PM Ralf Hemmecke wrote: > > Please define the format of a .pamphlet file so that people can > write tools to support that format. (If the format is moving, > that is not a problem, but we should always have an up-to-date > description of that format.) > I agree. Or rather I would very much prefer to *define* .pamphlet format as *exactly* the same as noweb format. That way we can forget about it and do something more important then vaguely trying to re-invent the wheel ... or something sort of round that rolls and makes transportation easy ... whatever that might be. ;) > Up to now I thought the format is like the one in noweb, but > already with your patch to noweb, you modified that. Without a > documented format we end up like SPAD is now. A language without > formal specification. > Good luck. > Good grief! Regards, Bill Page. _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
